sus
Moderator
I think the thing about fields is they have these originating frames, dichotomies, questions that become the foundation for everything after
Because there's this demand that things be tied into the canon—that's what makes something "part of the field" in a sense, especially in the social sciences
E.g. economics, psychology, sociology, ethnomethodology are all about the same thing, human behavior. But they have different canons and canonical approaches
And even when someone rejects or subverts some canonical frame, it's like... they are still playing ball? They're still stuck in the same frame? There's some way that the history deterministically lays out the path of possible futures, what can be meaningfully said, what constitutes and interesting and worthwhile "move" in the field's discourse
Because there's this demand that things be tied into the canon—that's what makes something "part of the field" in a sense, especially in the social sciences
E.g. economics, psychology, sociology, ethnomethodology are all about the same thing, human behavior. But they have different canons and canonical approaches
And even when someone rejects or subverts some canonical frame, it's like... they are still playing ball? They're still stuck in the same frame? There's some way that the history deterministically lays out the path of possible futures, what can be meaningfully said, what constitutes and interesting and worthwhile "move" in the field's discourse