Oral history som tvärvetenskap : : rapport från konferensen Oral history - the Art of dialogue : 8.-10.11.2007 Jagiellonska universitetet Krakow

Ajankohtaista

Dialogue in the crisis of representation : realism and antirealism in the context of the conversation between theologians and quantum physicists in Göttingen 1949-1961

The aim of this study is to analyse the content of the interdisciplinary conversations in Göttingen between 1949 and 1961. The task is to compare models for describing reality presented by quantum physicists and theologians. Descriptions of reality indifferent disciplines are conditioned by the development of the concept of reality in philosophy, physics and theology. Our basic problem is stated in the question: How is it possible for the intramental image to match the external object?Cartesian knowledge presupposes clear and distinct ideas in the mind prior to observation resulting in a true correspondence between the observed object and the cogitative observing subject. The Kantian synthesis between rationalism and empiricism emphasises an extended character of representation. The human mind is not a passive receiver of external information, but is actively construing intramental representations of external reality in the epistemological process. Heidegger's aim was to reach a more primordial mode of understanding reality than what is possible in the Cartesian Subject-Object distinction. In Heidegger's philosophy, ontology as being-in-the-world is prior to knowledge concerning being. Ontology can be grasped only in the totality of being (Dasein), not only as an object of reflection and perception. According to Bohr, quantum mechanics introduces an irreducible loss in representation, which classically understood is a deficiency in knowledge. The conflicting aspects (particle and wave pictures) in our comprehension of physical reality, cannot be completely accommodated into an entire and coherent model of reality. What Bohr rejects is not realism, but the classical Einsteinian version of it. By the use of complementary descriptions, Bohr tries to save a fundamentally realistic position. The fundamental question in Barthian theology is the problem of God as an object of theological discourse. Dialectics is Barth¿s way to express knowledge of God avoiding a speculative theology and a human-centred religious self-consciousness. In Barthian theology, the human capacity for knowledge, independently of revelation, is insufficient to comprehend the being of God. Our knowledge of God is real knowledge in revelation and our words are made to correspond with the divine reality in an analogy of faith. The point of the Bultmannian demythologising programme was to claim the real existence of God beyond our faculties. We cannot simply define God as a human ideal of existence or a focus of values. The theological programme of Bultmann emphasised the notion that we can talk meaningfully of God only insofar as we have existential experience of his intervention. Common to all these twentieth century philosophical, physical and theological positions, is a form of anti-Cartesianism. Consequently, in regard to their epistemology, they can be labelled antirealist. This common insight also made it possible to find a common meeting point between the different disciplines. In this study, the different standpoints from all three areas and the conversations in Göttingen are analysed in the frameworkof realism/antirealism. One of the first tasks in the Göttingen conversations was to analyse the nature of the likeness between the complementary structures inquantum physics introduced by Niels Bohr and the dialectical forms in the Barthian doctrine of God. The reaction against epistemological Cartesianism, metaphysics of substance and deterministic description of reality was the common point of departure for theologians and physicists in the Göttingen discussions. In his complementarity, Bohr anticipated the crossing of traditional epistemic boundaries and the generalisation of epistemological strategies by introducing interpretative procedures across various disciplines.

Corporate responsibility guaranteed by dialogue? Examining the relationship between nongovernmental organizations and business

The main objective of this doctoral dissertation is to examine the relationship between non-governmental organizations and business in the context of academic discourse, corporate responsibility discourse, and stakeholder dialogue. More specifically, motivated by the increasing emphasis on stakeholder dialogue as a tool for corporate responsibility and accountability, the aim is to critically assess the role of stakeholder dialogue as a self-regulatory mechanism, in particular from the perspective of foreign direct investments. The study comprises two parts; an introductory essay containing the research objectives, theoretical foundations and methodological choices, and four research articles that address one sub-objective: 1) to review the literature on NGO-business relations in business and society, management, and international business journals from 1998–2007; 2) to critically analyze the academic discourse on NGO-business relations; 3) to analyze the problematic aspects of sustainable foreign direct investments as a conceptual construct; and 4) to analyze the problematic aspects of stakeholder dialogue in connection with a foreign direct investment. The ontological and epistemological foundations of this dissertation build on the social constructionist view of reality. The dialogue in this study is viewed as a legitimacy bargaining process that is actively shaped by societal parties in discourse. Similarly, articulations of ‘partnership’ and ‘adversarial’ in NGO-business relations in academic business and society discourse are viewed as competing hegemonic interventions in the field. More specifically, the methods applied in the articles are literature review (Article 1), discourse theory (Article 2), conceptual analysis (Article 3), and case study with document analysis (Article 4). This dissertation has three main arguments and contributions. First, it is argued that the potential of stakeholder dialogue as a tool for corporate responsibility and accountability is inherently limited in both contexts. Second, the study shows the power implications of privileging partnership oriented NGO-business relations over adversarial ones, and of placing business at the centre of governance discourse. The third contribution is methodological: a new way to analyze academic discourse is presented by focusing on the problem setting of an article.

Kaupungin ja maaseudun vuorovaikutus alueellisessa kehittämispolitiikassa

In Finland, European Union membership and economic globalisation have changed the position of regions from closed territorial systems to nodes of open international networks. The increasing complexity of cities as globalised knowledge centres and functionally specialised and diversified rural areas, and on the other hand growing disparities between prosperous urban cores and lagging peripheral areas are also essential features in contemporary regional development. These trends have produced new needs to promote mutual dialogue between cities and the countryside in western market economies. Urban-rural interaction is an idea which was developed in the late 1990s within regional policy to pull together these new challenges to regional development and handle cities and the countryside as a whole. The aim of my study is to conceptualise the idea of urban-rural interaction, explain the phenomenon theoretically, clarify past and present urban and rural development and analyse regional policies from the interaction angle. The ultimate purpose is to illustrate the existence and nature of particular interaction policy in a globalising society. The general method is discourse analysis, which I use in three cases: Central Finland, South-Ostrobothnia and South-West Finland. Theoretically I have a two-dimensional approach. On the first hand I use World-System theory to explain how the global economy is moulding urban and rural structures at the regional level. On the other hand I use regime theory to explain local political actions and practises between cities and the countryside under the overlapping pressures deriving from reformulated regional structures and policies.

Adaptation to globalisation in Finland has been carried out by strengthening urban centres. The stress in regional policy has been in urban development. The development of the countryside has mostly been implemented by a separate rural policy. At the end of the 1990s and early 2000s Finnish cities have actually shown themselves to be competitive in global markets. The drawbacks of the new growth centre policy have been the sparse network of prosperous cities and their weak spreading effects, which have hindered comprehensive regional development. Tensions between urban and rural areas have also deepened. In this situation the interaction policy is used as a way of balancing development and moderate conflicts within the regions. From this point of view urban-rural interaction can be seen as a way of tackling the challenges of globalisation.

On the other hand the results emphasise that actors involved in regional development still believe, although the hegemonic discourse is on urban policy, that there are opportunities to stimulate progress in the countryside as well. In the situation where regional authorities control development resources, rural development can be successful only if rural actors manage to establish fruitful relationships with their urban partners. This is also the weakness of the programme-based regional policy. If rural municipalities or other actors are for any reason incapable of building development regimes with cities, the offers of interaction policy will be useless.

The problem of the interaction policy is that the focus and methods of it have so far been rather underdeveloped. In order to improve the efficiency of the interaction policy, further research should concentrate on the social processes which define the position of cities and the countryside as partners of interaction, and practises which promote or prohibit the possibilities of developing the interaction policy. The efforts to define different contents of urban-rural interaction or promote interaction projects should not have such an important role in the future as they have had so far. Instead, the focus of interaction policy should be on questions such as how to manage the political tensions between town and country and how to create a positive atmosphere for regional policy where the needs of urban and rural development are promoted equally.

Dialogioppiminen opetuksen ohjaustilanteissa

Summary: Dialogue learning in tutoring