The political and the epistemic in the twentieth century: historical perspectives

Abstract

Historical studies on the relationship between knowledge and politics have mostly focused on the narrower interplay between scientific knowledge and political institutions: the role of experts and advisors in policy making or the impact of the modern state on scientific institutions, theories, practices, and projects. Borrowing from Foucauldian discourse analysis, others have departed from the constitutive interrelationship between knowledge and power in order to reconstruct the epistemic regimes of governmentality. Taking up recent accounts in political theory, such as those by Jacques Rancière, Ernesto Laclau, and Chantal Mouffe, we argue for an antifoundationalist understanding of both the political and the epistemic beyond institutionalized frameworks. The distinction between science, knowledge, and the realm of the political is thus not imbued with a clear-cut dividing line; instead, the relationship is characterized by ongoing and contested boundary work performed by various actors with different resources, strategies, intentions, and interests. The historically shifting scope of the political relies on contested fields and foundations of knowledge, and vice versa. For a more thorough understanding of the political aspects of knowledge production and circulation we therefore suggest considering the nonfoundational and agonistic conditions in which knowledge emerges in an ever-changing power play of forms and social contexts.