WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.001 --> 00:00:20.829
Awesome thanks for getting up super early and coming to see some papers about metaphysics you probably didn't know. That's what you're signing up for when you came to this session. But I'm going to present what I hope to be a positive intervention on what I think is one of the most pressing problems that we have in social theorizing today

2
00:00:20.890 --> 00:00:41.880
which is ontological actualism. But before I do, I just want to acknowledge the colonnation and express my respect and gratitude to be a guest on their lands. I join the conference here from Tree one territory in Canada, which is the home of the Ojikri and a Shinabek Denet and and Metti peoples.

3
00:00:42.060 --> 00:00:43.900
Okay, let's jump in.

4
00:00:44.580 --> 00:01:03.629
Okay, so this is a kind of general claim, slightly. you know. painting a broad stroke, as it were. But I'm actually going to focus primarily on one of my subfields of sociology, of medicine, and more broadly, science and technology studies, to look at how actualism has come to play a role

5
00:01:03.630 --> 00:01:16.150
in grounding certain types of normative claims. But I'm going to critically interrogate that today by looking at the met theoretical limitations of actualism in critical Using a critical kind of approach.

6
00:01:16.230 --> 00:01:40.140
Some of this presentation emerges from work that I have done previously, as well as ongoing with Ron John Paul data, and the main argument is twofold. First, it takes issue with the predominant commitments to actualism found in the literature, and, secondly, it suggests a way forward that entails the analysis of what I call socially possible worlds. And or we might also think about it as potential

7
00:01:40.140 --> 00:01:50.649
future states. So to begin, I'm going to define actualism and then cash out what I mean by social, socially possible worlds or kind of ontological positivism.

8
00:01:50.650 --> 00:02:05.080
And I'll use some foundational examples from the sociology of medicine, and kind of motivate what it is that I'm talking about, and then conclude with what I think are some of the normative upshots of of the view that I'm presenting.

9
00:02:05.780 --> 00:02:15.700
Okay? So the fundamental premise of actualism is that everything that exists is actual which entails the idea that there is nothing empirically apprehensible that is not

10
00:02:15.700 --> 00:02:40.840
actual. And what makes actualism interesting for sociological reflection concerns the issues that are raised when our ontological commitments come up against our normative and prescriptive claims, making prescriptive claims about how institutions, for example, should organize themselves, what people should do, what kinds of social changes should be brought about how the world should be different. These are the kinds of things that I want to highlight as being potentially problematic.

11
00:02:40.920 --> 00:03:07.429
we often see these kinds of statements, right? Normative statements are often found in concluding thoughts after sociological work, or even in our research questions. And I think this poses a serious problem for the emancipatory possibilities of critical sociology. and what I want to clarify is that I'm not going to be denying a place for actualism in social science. But instead looking at how the labor produced by these kinds of actualist commitments.

12
00:03:07.430 --> 00:03:20.639
is actually needed to provide the type of picture of contingencies and actualities that are needed when we want to start thinking about the social state of affairs that are accessible to us in the future.

13
00:03:20.900 --> 00:03:39.729
So but first, I think we should think a little bit about the pros and cons. I think there's some really good reasons that people have taken up the actualist ontological commitment, either willing wittingly or not for one. It like it rejects some of the limitations of a purely rational epistemological commitment.

14
00:03:39.730 --> 00:04:09.660
because it's rooted in observables, right? So things that are actually there before us and her observations. It also has. You know this way of rejecting a kind of Utopianism that some of sociology has inherited from the French Socialists, like Kont or Saint Simon because the prescriptions that are made are actually derived from social science, and so the idea that they have some basis in reality that's been observed rather than the stuff of, say, our daydreams or or pure speculation.

15
00:04:09.900 --> 00:04:30.040
but the drawbacks as we'll discuss. So I think a number of sociologists specifically working in the science of technology studies literature. they might say that. Say, like, you know, everything is contingent, meaning that everything could be otherwise. But I think we kind of lack an ontological and epistemological basis for making these kinds of claims.

16
00:04:30.170 --> 00:04:48.099
So some of the cons are is that for one, there's no basis for this contingency, as I'm going to show you, which makes it difficult, because we're only focused on the here and now, which which is in a sense makes it difficult to justify how we could know things could be different.

17
00:04:48.430 --> 00:04:56.129
and how we might ground those claims, or what what could be otherwise. So we have this age-old human gap between the ontological and the normative.

18
00:04:56.130 --> 00:05:18.850
But I want to propose an ameliative intervention here to Think about what possibleism could be and how that might ground our sociological prescriptions. So first thing we need to do is reject the specialness of observables. And I'm going to talk a little bit about that now by borrowing some important things that are happening in metaphysics actually, over the last 30 years.

19
00:05:18.880 --> 00:05:39.290
and I think it's time for us to reap some of the benefits of philosophy in our theorizing. So first and foremost building on the work of David Lewis from 1,990. The thing about possible is that there is no special property that distinguishes actual things from possible things. And that's because actual things are also possible.

20
00:05:39.500 --> 00:05:51.739
The things that actually exist have at 1 point been possible. So there are. And so from this we can understand that that means that there are more possibilities than there are things in actuality.

21
00:05:52.330 --> 00:06:04.700
So I want to think about this in terms of our own object of analysis, right? Like socially possible worlds. And I think there are a number of different ways that we can cash this out, and I think there's lots of ways that this could be helpful.

22
00:06:04.820 --> 00:06:10.389
But I'm going to do this from kind of my own sociology to think about this a bit more concretely.

23
00:06:11.160 --> 00:06:40.630
So, what are socially possible worlds, I think socially possible. Worlds are things that are things that contain sets of social forces and conditions. But we also might want to cash this out using a different type of sociological analysis. Maybe you want to say it's made up of meanings and negotiations, or, you know, different types of ways that we might interact or practices. But anyway, we want to think about social world as containing a set of things that can be defined.

24
00:06:41.270 --> 00:07:00.740
And so we want to think about, when are those things possible? We want to restrict our. So we don't necessarily want to just make everything important. But we actually want to restrict ourselves to a kind of narrow or more interesting collection about social world. So we want to be thinking a little bit about what's actually interesting to us as sociologists.

25
00:07:01.070 --> 00:07:25.799
So I think that we might consider that a few other types of you know, elements here that are really important for caching up my view. So something that that we can actually. So we've got the socially possible worlds that are at least a consistent set of social forces. Right? We we want to be able to think about what's possible as not necessarily rejecting any of the things that are in our world. We don't want to say that this future state of affairs we want to bring about

26
00:07:25.930 --> 00:07:38.869
is, you know, potentially a world without gravity or something like that. We want to say. There are certain things that that hold. We also want to think about them as being something that's conceivable to us. So the future state of affairs has to be something that we can reason about

27
00:07:38.990 --> 00:07:57.190
and it must share our history. and because I think that when we think about changing the future, if we want to think about various possibilities of social change that are open to us, that means that all of those possibilities have to have or share, or at least be coherent with the same type of history that led us to now.

28
00:07:57.410 --> 00:08:11.900
So that means that our socially possible worlds have to be in some sense continuous with the present. So we can when we think about why we care about socially possible worlds. It's because we want to know which ones are accessible to us.

29
00:08:12.480 --> 00:08:27.549
And what do we mean by socially accessible? This is building a little bit more, on my view. So on the left, you can see, let's say, our world, the actual world, the world that we're in now. But perhaps we want to know whether 2 potentially different future states of affairs

30
00:08:27.550 --> 00:08:47.259
are accessible to us. And at the top I've got a whole bunch of people holding hands. So that's like, you know, let's say, a kind of Marxian Communist future, or maybe on the bottom, we have the further entrenchment of capitalism in advanced societies. So what we want to understand is whether certain possible future states of affairs are accessible to us.

31
00:08:47.260 --> 00:08:55.879
And so what that brings about is this type of definition, the way that I'm thinking about it, which is that socially accessible worlds are those where the present might

32
00:08:56.200 --> 00:09:13.220
become something different, right? It could be possible through social change. So that's what's accessible to us. And this accessibility relation enables us to theorize our possibilities by ordering which socially possible worlds can be brought about via which social changes.

33
00:09:15.170 --> 00:09:40.250
Okay, so to just kind of recap before I motivate this through. a field of examples, I'm going to state this in kind of like the negative, which is that things that are socially possible worlds are not so. They're not just merely conceptually possible. That's too weak. This isn't just the stuff of our, you know, imaginations, our sociological imaginations. It's also you know, not the stuff of Utopianism.

34
00:09:40.250 --> 00:09:55.070
they aren't necessarily historically different, because time travel is impossible. We can't go backwards in time if you want to know about that, read David Lewis, and finally, they they can't be drastically different from the present, because that makes them non continuous.

35
00:09:55.990 --> 00:10:07.600
Okay, so let's motivate this from the unfeasibility of actualism. And as I'll describe, this is not about, you know, this doesn't put kind of like social theorists and critical theorists in a good place

36
00:10:07.600 --> 00:10:28.469
to discuss social change. unless I think we take on certain these tenants that I've presented to us today. Okay, so in one or 2 examples, I want to keep a place for the epistemic practices that are grounded by on actualism, but also providing a basis for generating statements about the socially possible.

37
00:10:30.480 --> 00:10:51.180
Okay, so about 5 min. And I will do that. Okay, so I think this is where some of the trouble started. More recently, at least in the science of technology studies literature. Bruno Latour's 2,005 book, which has been cited, you know, 40,000 times in in my own subfield of of medical sociology and and scientific technology studies.

38
00:10:51.220 --> 00:11:13.839
But basically what this book argues for is that that there are no kind of like global phenomena in a sense, because everything global has to be instantiated in the local. So think taking things like a network or a structure or a social system. They always have to be instantiated through individual practice, or in these kinds of actualist observations.

39
00:11:13.900 --> 00:11:42.869
And I think that what this means, in practice, at least as it's prescribed, and as many people follow this in their own epistemic practices, is that when we want to think about the kind of system or structure we want to think about global features of the kind of institutions, or or whatever we're looking at is that we have to be able to and just onwards ask ourselves in which building, in which practices in which places in which institutions.

40
00:11:43.050 --> 00:12:07.710
and so I think that this presents a kind of normative conundrum in in some ways, because not only does, of course, Latour begin the last chapter of that book by rejecting critical theory, especially the works of Bauman. But is that what he thinks he's presenting is a kind of political epistemology as well, which is the idea that when we can, when we want to define

41
00:12:07.710 --> 00:12:22.300
certain kinds of you know, states of what's going on? Is that what the kind of political upshots are is by showing the interconnections between the actual things that exist, and then that makes unification acceptable according to

42
00:12:22.300 --> 00:12:29.270
this particular view, and this has been taken up a great deal in. As I said, my home subfield of Sociology.

43
00:12:29.270 --> 00:12:41.250
Of medicine, and this paper by Stefan Timmerman and Mark Berg, has been cited a thousand times. And it's looking at a global phenomenon standards.

44
00:12:41.250 --> 00:13:04.050
And it follows the goals that are set out by Latour. But basically what they argue and is kind of looking at these kinds of universal objects, or what they call standards. But in order to be able to say something about them, what we need to do is actually look at what people actually do, what is happening in their actual practices, how those standards get crystallized.

45
00:13:04.050 --> 00:13:23.339
and but what the things that they want to do in this particular paper, and in other types of works that follow this kind of trajectory is to actually be able to say when those types of practices fail, and what we should be recommending for amelioration. And so just to kind of cash this out on their own terrain, quite briefly, just due to time constraints.

46
00:13:23.340 --> 00:13:47.490
Is that the way that they think about standards is they call them these techno scientific scripts. But that standards need to be observed in action. We need to be able to think about whether they are instantiated in particular corridors, in particular hospitals, for example, and see whether they are in effect acted out or actual things. They also have this temporal character, and what they call is a kind of crystallization.

47
00:13:47.490 --> 00:14:05.010
is actually looking at what we might think about in terms of standards as observable roles and requirements, and how these could be articulated in different ways. So, for example, what they observe in their particular paper, is that people aren't following certain standards when it comes to the use of various

48
00:14:05.010 --> 00:14:29.800
technologies. And so at the end of their paper. What Timbermansenberg present is, they say, look, there are these global things. They're instantiated in practice sometimes. But they want to make this normative recommendation, which is how it should be the case. But they haven't actually provided us. This type of analysis like, how is it that we might think about in so further instantiating certain types of of standards in practice. And so I think there's some

49
00:14:29.820 --> 00:14:48.970
kind of unactualized potentials pun intended in terms of how we might think about what kinds of normative upshots would come from taking on the view that I've proposed today. I think there's some wiggle room that already exists in the literature they already want to be thinking about possible states of affairs. And so I think.

50
00:14:48.980 --> 00:15:02.169
bringing that in bringing in what I proposed is actually quite feasible. So the good news is that no one is going to lose their jobs. With my view, I think the upshots connect the epistemic practices of science

51
00:15:02.320 --> 00:15:19.019
with the socially possible, because it's only through what is actually observed that we're able to think about the present world, and what kinds of social changes are possible. And so that would be adding a kind of extra level to our analysis

52
00:15:19.020 --> 00:15:33.039
and being able to theorise from these naturalist analysis that we're doing in social science in order to make claims or recommendations on the basis of which social worlds are in effect accessible to us.

53
00:15:33.340 --> 00:15:58.340
So, in other words, I think that the labor from the actualists is really central to the work of of social science, because it provides the picture of the social world which is, will enable us to theorize or to produce analyses about. Given the current state of affairs, or what's actual, what other things may in fact be possible, and we would base this upon the very types of observed phenomena about the social forces.

54
00:15:58.460 --> 00:16:17.310
or social conditions, or meaning making, or what other, whatever elements are made up of in your particular sociology and your possible worlds. So I'm going to leave it there for now, and I thank you very much for coming this early, and thanks very much to my funders and those who have assisted me in thinking about this project. Thank you.

55
00:16:21.600 --> 00:16:23.140
just as my.

56
00:16:25.350 --> 00:16:28.850
it's it. Say more on my conclusion.

57
00:16:29.220 --> 00:16:34.270
Yeah, sure. Sure, I've talked about how I've done this in my own work. Yeah, sure.

58
00:16:36.100 --> 00:17:02.279
So there we go. Yeah, So I I mean, maybe what I'll do is actually just motivate this from like what has kind of like been been what bothers me in a sense, and the kind of project that I've been interested in. in the kinds of critical theory work that I do in the sociology of medicine is that I often get criticisms through peer review that are like, but how you know. But where are the actual observations?

59
00:17:02.560 --> 00:17:34.849
We're out right there. Sorry. That's right. I have to be here for our online audience. Yeah, we're hybrid. I'm leaving the hybrid dream. Thank you for the reminder. Yeah. So so I often get these kinds of comments on my work that are on, that are often asking me where my actual observables are, whereas I want to think about under what social conditions. We might actually think about changing, for example, medicine. And I've cashed this out in in terms of like my book on evidence-based medicine, where I've thought a little bit about what social conditions are there, and what kinds of worlds we might

60
00:17:34.850 --> 00:17:47.040
have access to. And I've done this through historical research that uses various discursive and nondiscursive practices as an index for thinking about what types of changes

61
00:17:47.040 --> 00:18:10.860
there might, there might need to be so in some sense this is kind of like a way for me to actually spell out my own. I guess social morphology, or what I what kinds of commitments I think we could bring to complement what's already going on in the sociology of medicine. So that's kind of where where this has kind of come from in terms of my own thinking. and I'm I'm happy to just. I'm happy to leave it there and have more time for questions.

62
00:18:11.300 --> 00:18:14.739
Yeah, yeah. for you like to.

63
00:18:14.890 --> 00:18:16.070
So this

64
00:18:16.680 --> 00:18:17.920
actualist.

65
00:18:19.580 --> 00:18:36.650
I think it's there right? Like this is kind of I I mean, I wasn't able to, you know, just, you know, do to the way that I've prepared for a 15 min presentation. I didn't have the the time to go through all of the various quotations they exist in the other paper. But just really focusing on that that first book.

66
00:18:36.990 --> 00:18:38.860
whoo! Let's go back here.

67
00:18:39.590 --> 00:18:56.150
Yeah. So I think I think that the way that Latour spells out his problematic is is, in a sense like trying to think a little bit about what actually is the case? Right? We can't. He rejects the idea of these kinds of abstract objects, or what what things you know

68
00:18:56.270 --> 00:19:17.779
may only be observed in the local right. So in a sense, it's, it's a it's a commitment to the actualism, not only ontologically, because he's talking about what is possible to you observed. So there's a kind of there's a nominalist rejection here as well, of the kind of of the you know, of a maybe like more abstract object, like the global or the system or the structure.

69
00:19:17.950 --> 00:19:38.650
But I think that the kind of epistemic practices that he's laying out are committed to only what's actually observable, because that's the only way that we can say things that are substantial about what? What those abstract objects are like, whether they be networks or structures. Yeah. So I I think that I think that that that is a kind of unthought commitment that he holds. Yeah.

70
00:19:39.290 --> 00:19:41.189
so we can

71
00:19:45.030 --> 00:19:45.920
this.

72
00:19:48.730 --> 00:19:50.010
And the way.

73
00:19:50.400 --> 00:19:58.399
yeah, I could probably end my slide show, does that work. Yeah, cool, and then stop sharing. Hello.

74
00:20:07.730 --> 00:20:08.560
you know.

75
00:20:10.940 --> 00:20:12.100
Hi!

76
00:20:12.830 --> 00:20:13.800
Liubov Klepikova: Oh.

77
00:20:20.290 --> 00:20:31.880
but they can hear me from the mic. I don't think I'm it. They don't think we're negotiating the hybrid space just to update you online. If that's okay.

78
00:20:31.990 --> 00:20:46.460
Hello, I'm I, Cinder Aberdeen from Atrobe University and Melbourne University. And I was very much interested in your presentation. Thank you, and I was fascinated to hear you talk about its application in sociology of medicine.

79
00:20:46.680 --> 00:20:47.889
and I wanted.

80
00:20:48.730 --> 00:21:06.290
when you're looking your discussion about what socially, socially possible changes. I mean, one of the things we know is in the literature is resistance to knowledge, translation in medical settings. Yeah, practices that are known to be best evidence based practices.

81
00:21:06.290 --> 00:21:22.210
And I'm just wondering how your analysis and understanding of what socially possible brings light on that area to advance knowledge translation practices in medical settings. Thank you. I I couldn't have asked for a better question. Thank you so much.

82
00:21:22.210 --> 00:21:36.260
I didn't. You know, the checks not going to bounce, as they say. But yeah, okay. So so what I think is really interesting about this is that like given my sociology. The world is made up of these kinds of mechanisms and social forces.

83
00:21:36.260 --> 00:21:53.230
social conditions. And so the way that I think about that I've thought about this in the impossible clinic. My first book is that what I, what I talked about was looking at? Ok, so what are the mechanisms that exist now, and what are the effects that are being produced? And so there are a number of different things that I

84
00:21:53.230 --> 00:22:20.090
that I that I actually go through there in terms of certain types of disciplinary mechanisms that make certain types of knowledge. Translation from laboratory to bedside interrupted in a sense. And so I spell that out in the book. And and basically what I'm imagining with this particular, with this particular view that I'm proposing is that we take that knowledge of what those mechanisms are that are causing certain types of downstream effects like, say, for example.

85
00:22:20.090 --> 00:22:28.690
you know the non uptake of evidence into practice. And then we think about. Okay? Is it accessible to us? Given what we know about these mechanisms to change them?

86
00:22:28.790 --> 00:22:46.860
And then what might we theorise about the future state of affairs given what we know about now, and what we know about those particular mechanisms that exist, or the ones that we possibly want to introduce. And so that's kind of what I'm thinking about in terms of this particular view is to is not only to identify

87
00:22:46.970 --> 00:23:13.820
who in which corridors in which hospitals are or are not using that particular type of evidence, but also what are the kinds of broader conditions? What is the nature of that social world that is producing that effect. And how might we identify what those mechanisms are, and then propose new ones? in order to think about a world in which what we want is possible, like the uptake of certain types of evidences. So I hope that answers your question.

88
00:23:20.859 --> 00:23:24.499
Liubov Klepikova: excuse me, can I post the question, too.

89
00:23:26.160 --> 00:23:50.279
Liubov Klepikova: Yes, go ahead. Thank you. Yes. So one question might be. It's a little knife. Maybe I didn't understand something, because both pretty quickly everything. And tell me, please, the social possible ball. Is is it some kind of bright future, or it some alternative universe? What did you mean exactly under it.

90
00:23:51.100 --> 00:24:02.260
under the socially possible world. That would be something like a future state of affairs, where we might think about bringing it about through certain types of social changes that we would propose through our social science.

91
00:24:03.090 --> 00:24:20.020
and I characterized it with a number of different kinds of elements, right, like having a historical consistency, having similar types of social conditions like those are the kinds of things that I cash it out with. But that's I think we could do that in a lot of different ways. That's just the way I've done it for my particular type of critical sociology.

92
00:24:21.200 --> 00:24:24.529
Liubov Klepikova: So this is a nearest future. Yes.

93
00:24:24.979 --> 00:24:25.880
yeah.

94
00:24:29.790 --> 00:24:30.630
Liubov Klepikova: thank you.

95
00:24:32.610 --> 00:24:33.850
Thanks for the question.

96
00:24:40.440 --> 00:24:44.560
My name is Janey Santos. I'm from Brazil.

97
00:24:45.040 --> 00:24:53.719
 thank you, Professor, for for your lecture from our. I understand

98
00:24:53.780 --> 00:25:03.469
in your studies on actualism. You saw the possibility of a possibleism and the traces that they left

99
00:25:03.480 --> 00:25:19.860
trying to describe today, you saw the tomorrow. So I guess, is probably what I'm trying to to see about this possibilities. Is that what are the the gradients of the possibleism?

100
00:25:20.110 --> 00:25:27.150
because in some type of context, a little change could make

101
00:25:27.340 --> 00:25:29.899
tons of differences. But

102
00:25:30.040 --> 00:25:41.070
this is possible. But in different types of context. this same change would not bring this social possible world. We have to make a

103
00:25:41.600 --> 00:25:48.640
a contextual and some collection of changes to make the same

104
00:25:48.820 --> 00:25:54.429
to make the same end result, and that leads to more

105
00:25:54.490 --> 00:25:58.849
to more action, to more practices, to more

106
00:25:59.070 --> 00:26:00.580
political action.

107
00:26:00.720 --> 00:26:07.920
So is that a is that should be a a

108
00:26:07.970 --> 00:26:17.149
a stepping stone, or maybe an empirical argument? Or is this a part of your view? And

109
00:26:17.240 --> 00:26:18.770
also just

110
00:26:19.570 --> 00:26:24.469
should we rethink, or should we

111
00:26:24.640 --> 00:26:28.830
reassess what we think about Utopia?

112
00:26:29.040 --> 00:26:39.139
Because sometimes, and I don't know what I'm mentioning right now. Because why am I doing this? Because I was re-reading the Republic, and

113
00:26:39.550 --> 00:26:47.429
and it's very clear that his when he's designing his city, he said, this is not an impossible city. It's not impossible.

114
00:26:47.540 --> 00:26:59.599
You can see that I'm saying something that it's not an impossibility. So that's why it can. It sounds data, of course.

115
00:27:00.410 --> 00:27:12.879
and that's why it's it could be an argument, because it's not impossible. So should we rethink about it. Should we reassess it? Is it that is valuable? So thank you.

116
00:27:13.120 --> 00:27:19.490
Ok, so there's 2 questions. The answer to the second one is, Yes, no. I'll give you more than that.

117
00:27:19.610 --> 00:27:26.310
Okay, I like what you're thinking about, like the maybe like variation on on kind of like the incremental.

118
00:27:26.990 --> 00:27:39.490
You know, world kind of relations. I'll have to think about that a little bit more. I really like that idea because I think I think you're right. There could be probably like variations in scale in terms of how we think about

119
00:27:39.570 --> 00:27:52.820
 you know. Say, we want to bring about this massive revolution to one of our institutions, we would actually probably have to do the math backwards and think about incrementally, which types of steps are accessible to us.

120
00:27:52.900 --> 00:28:02.660
but then I also really want to. I kind of want to hold on to the tenants of realism. And so I'm just riffing here. But I'm going to give your, you know, comment a lot of thought after this. So I appreciate it.

121
00:28:02.760 --> 00:28:14.740
But if I'm thinking about the you know the you know certain tenants of of realism. And like, especially like, you know, taking seriously something like the contingency right? A cause

122
00:28:14.820 --> 00:28:25.050
of the way that we think about that that that emergent property is that we actually won't know what the effects are until we implement them right? And so I think that that's

123
00:28:25.110 --> 00:28:36.220
this is why I think, like, we might in a sense, posit that we will have to go through a number of different accessibility relations through various incremental changes. But that I mean, I think I think I'm kind of.

124
00:28:36.670 --> 00:28:51.769
you know, agreeing with, say, like Marx, or like Al Qaeda, and saying, but we actually won't know what it what it is until it until it comes. But we do want to be able to justify the types of claims that we want to make about what we foresee as the possible effects

125
00:28:52.000 --> 00:29:01.040
given the types of changes that we're advocating for in in based on the now sort. Or I really like the way you put it like seeing the tomorrow in the today I'm going to.

126
00:29:01.140 --> 00:29:11.220
I'm gonna I'm gonna cite you set you on that. But anyway, so so I'll think about that really, seriously. But those are just kind of some of my first thoughts. just based on on that question.

127
00:29:11.450 --> 00:29:34.040
yeah, the Utopian, the Utopian bit like I. I don't want to stop dreaming like I'm not trying to, you know. I'm not trying to stop our sociological imaginations. But you know in this, in this whatsoever I think I think for me, I actually do want to think very concretely about you know what kinds of social world we want. But I also want us to have a kind of epistemic practice for at least proposing how to get there.

128
00:29:34.050 --> 00:29:58.449
and so I guess I guess that's a very brief way of saying, I do think we want to rethink our Utopias in so far as how we propose bringing them about, and what kinds of justifications we give, but not that we should stop thinking collectively about what kinds of worlds or questions or activities, or you know, institutions that we actually want to see in in this world, so or in our world.

129
00:29:59.010 --> 00:30:01.269
Yeah, that's that. Was that was the end. Thank you.

130
00:30:06.070 --> 00:30:22.810
I I thought it was great. I left me thinking about it a lot of stuff, but I was just trying to make it concrete in my mind. I'm not that familiar with the sociology of illness, and not even so much with science and technology studies. But I was thinking, would it work like

131
00:30:22.810 --> 00:30:36.330
when we're thinking about possible worlds. It's amazing, for example, that is homeopathy, or, for example, also this whole research and bacteria. It's like the world of bacteria is so big. And we know that it's so influential in the human body.

132
00:30:36.570 --> 00:30:38.870
Yet it is almost inaccessible.

133
00:30:39.310 --> 00:30:41.069
It's kind of

134
00:30:41.590 --> 00:30:49.609
similar to what we were talking about earlier about quantum entanglement and kind of a phenomenon that we will probably never fully understand.

135
00:30:50.480 --> 00:31:20.289
So unless maybe we make a bit on a way of thinking about science, that is absolutely different, that it's not about like a meal. But they cannot be tested through this and scientific method. Okay, you know, statistically proving it in the entire population will, it will have to be kind of case by case personalized, or the whole method will have to change will be applied in that way. I think I see your analogy. I'll be really brief, because I know that we have other presentations, and I'm really grateful for everyone's thoughts and provocations. That's been really helpful for me. So thank you.

136
00:31:20.290 --> 00:31:45.860
yeah. So I. So if I understand your analogy correctly, is that it's kind of thinking about the tenants of science, and whether we have to reject certain certain things. And I right now, I'm cautious about agreeing with that assessment, because I I don't want to say that we like when I said no one should lose their job right? It's like committed to this kind of ontological actionism, because I actually think that epicentic practice is so central to thinking about. You know, what could be the case?

137
00:31:45.890 --> 00:32:06.780
but but yeah, I think maybe there's something we should talk, you know, after we'll I'm sure we'll continue the conversation, because I I think there's probably something more in what you've said that I haven't fully understood. But I do think there needs to be kind of room for more than one ontological commitment. But I don't know if that requires the full overhaul, let's say, of social science, given your analogy. But again, maybe I've missed something.

138
00:32:06.870 --> 00:32:08.920
Okay? So like.

139
00:32:09.620 --> 00:32:12.540
Oh, okay.

140
00:32:13.540 --> 00:32:17.279
you can. Actually it. It's about ordering the possible.

141
00:32:17.390 --> 00:32:18.800
What? During the experience

142
00:32:19.320 --> 00:32:24.089
my question, and there will be some more, and we can make this

143
00:32:24.460 --> 00:32:26.470
that 12 issue

144
00:32:27.490 --> 00:32:41.230
my question. I don't know if you speak from medicine as well. So the experience is codified. The possible work has to be proven that they go to lining and bacteria, disease or bacteria.

145
00:32:43.510 --> 00:32:44.620
I do. I.

146
00:32:44.910 --> 00:32:50.870
Science, medicine festivalization in the order of experiment by.

147
00:32:51.350 --> 00:32:54.059
I don't know if he's people to such a word.

148
00:32:54.410 --> 00:33:02.479
what people has to agree. So the peers has a tension between the world of science and biotech and social work.

149
00:33:03.180 --> 00:33:08.599
It's not you to be to death, and there's a tension. But you can. I appreciate your social work.

150
00:33:09.570 --> 00:33:12.539
I'm not sure we can go now. But I,

151
00:33:13.930 --> 00:33:17.110
he has a tension between accuracy and possibilities.

152
00:33:17.390 --> 00:33:21.740
But the possibility is under control of science proceeding

153
00:33:22.080 --> 00:33:23.730
fully,

154
00:33:23.750 --> 00:33:34.189
it's under the control of network theory as something something

155
00:33:34.910 --> 00:33:37.190
sufficiently yeah

156
00:33:37.610 --> 00:33:44.230
and also when you work on ecology, the possible work is guy negoti, we are going to.

157
00:33:45.100 --> 00:33:49.529
So we we are going to another paper by the container. that society

158
00:33:50.210 --> 00:33:52.239
which is another way to consider.

159
00:33:54.570 --> 00:33:58.190
That's great.

160
00:33:58.590 --> 00:34:03.850
Yes, absolutely. Thank you? Very. Thank you, Jed, and thanks. Everyone

161
00:34:07.740 --> 00:34:09.070
clip over.

162
00:34:17.950 --> 00:34:20.210
So which way you

163
00:34:22.490 --> 00:34:24.619
I I go to your presentation.

164
00:34:24.660 --> 00:34:26.090
Liubov Klepikova: Okay.

165
00:34:29.650 --> 00:34:34.010
And you have 20 min for speaking, developing your question and your reasoning.

166
00:34:34.240 --> 00:34:45.940
should I download myself? Because I it is a first presentation, not mine.

167
00:34:45.980 --> 00:34:47.810
Sorry. Just

168
00:34:47.900 --> 00:34:50.889
You're in line that you're going to launch your own presentation right?

169
00:34:51.200 --> 00:35:01.740
His presentations to be there, she she said. Before that you have to go on. Yeah, so you can share your screen. Now, okay, okay, 1 min. So

170
00:35:02.260 --> 00:35:03.500
Liubov Klepikova: hmm.

171
00:35:04.260 --> 00:35:13.459
 but the whole question is to be here.

172
00:35:13.940 --> 00:35:16.019
it's just easier if she does it.

173
00:35:16.970 --> 00:35:26.420
Liubov Klepikova: Okay? you see, this? yeah, yeah. Can be a good full spin. Oh, yes, yes. One meet.

174
00:35:28.090 --> 00:35:28.820
Liubov Klepikova: Well.

175
00:35:29.040 --> 00:35:32.280
we didn't stop sharing. Yeah.

176
00:35:32.670 --> 00:35:41.040
 But we did stop sharing, didn't we? Hold on? Let me just close this one. I think that's what happened. It's all right

177
00:35:42.080 --> 00:35:43.640
Liubov Klepikova: everything. Okay.

178
00:35:43.990 --> 00:35:46.039
up to you. Go.

179
00:35:46.300 --> 00:35:48.850
Liubov Klepikova: Do you see? Full screen?

180
00:35:49.120 --> 00:35:53.930
No. no, don't have what? 3. You know. This.

181
00:36:00.190 --> 00:36:03.320
you can put full screen. You have the curb

182
00:36:03.630 --> 00:36:04.570
below.

183
00:36:08.630 --> 00:36:10.400
Students.

184
00:36:12.510 --> 00:36:15.890
Liubov Klepikova: I try again.

185
00:36:21.070 --> 00:36:21.850
Yeah.

186
00:36:23.470 --> 00:36:25.630
Liubov Klepikova: okay. no.

187
00:36:26.120 --> 00:36:28.710
Let's go 20 min.

188
00:36:28.900 --> 00:36:29.620
Liubov Klepikova: Okay.

189
00:36:29.980 --> 00:36:31.689
okay. thank you.

190
00:36:31.920 --> 00:36:57.039
Liubov Klepikova: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Klepikova, and I am associated Professor at the Department of Philosophy in Russian University of Transport. Today. I would like to present to you my report the container model of society, the concepts for it and in theoretical potential for the modern social transformation research

191
00:36:57.240 --> 00:36:58.309
Liubov Klepikova: so.

192
00:36:59.060 --> 00:37:16.729
Liubov Klepikova: and that our container national container container model of society. In following, I will use a Cms. This a term that you can found in the special literature for the past 2 or 3 decades

193
00:37:16.730 --> 00:37:31.210
Liubov Klepikova: a container or a national container in place, a certain way of ordering modern society by distinguishing some groups from others on the basis of political citizenship, national

194
00:37:31.640 --> 00:37:42.550
Liubov Klepikova: culture, and so on. We able to see that the term Cms was invented as an object for critic.

195
00:37:42.560 --> 00:37:49.830
Liubov Klepikova: Now we need to see in which fields this critics took place. So

196
00:37:49.950 --> 00:38:13.320
Liubov Klepikova: we highlighted 2 types of for academic research deal with the Cms. The first step is papers that, to use the term as social, political, and metaphor, he uses a also from this. a group by container. Here is meet primarily a a territorial space that can

197
00:38:13.320 --> 00:38:36.349
Liubov Klepikova: that has centralized the or political control and exist within certain boundaries or for no natural origins. The container state processes economic capital control over the social, fair and middle military protection, and it legitimize its own existence at the cultural level.

198
00:38:36.360 --> 00:39:02.930
Liubov Klepikova: This is done through the creation of one national cultural, found by establishment of 1 one that language standards by the way, metaphor of closing container is Legery, associated with the interpretation of sociologist the, and to me guidance, who correct, resides in modern state primarily as a powerful instrument of violence.

199
00:39:03.310 --> 00:39:04.540
Second type.

200
00:39:04.880 --> 00:39:12.280
Liubov Klepikova: his paper using the term container in migration and transnational studies.

201
00:39:12.430 --> 00:39:36.839
Liubov Klepikova: he said also that also who who uses this stem in that way. as example, I'll talk a Nina, Greek, Sheila and Andress vima They use container or national container to criticize the phenomenon they call to methodological nationalism

202
00:39:36.840 --> 00:39:55.179
Liubov Klepikova: as this is a reflection of all the research paradigm according to which the existence within the national state is consided to be a norm. while you microphone. Try to speak in face of your microphone.

203
00:39:55.290 --> 00:39:58.019
Liubov Klepikova: yes, every single, you know

204
00:39:59.570 --> 00:40:00.970
we cannot hear you.

205
00:40:02.280 --> 00:40:05.640
Liubov Klepikova: my microphone is phone.

206
00:40:06.740 --> 00:40:10.129
Speak on your microphone. Where is your microphone?

207
00:40:10.590 --> 00:40:12.400
Liubov Klepikova: Oh, yes, I do it.

208
00:40:15.440 --> 00:40:16.530
Some programs.

209
00:40:26.300 --> 00:40:28.469
Liubov Klepikova: Now, is it? Okay?

210
00:40:31.270 --> 00:40:37.879
Let me just chat with them. You? No, I have no idea we had this yesterday, but I know it's come from here.

211
00:40:38.670 --> 00:40:48.069
 Oh, but we don't have any10, no! Usually someone from the is connected. But they are not today.

212
00:40:54.690 --> 00:40:57.450
Liubov Klepikova: in chat, I see people hear me

213
00:41:00.240 --> 00:41:04.919
that you don't have to. Yeah, I I do it.

214
00:41:11.190 --> 00:41:14.519
Liubov Klepikova: Yes, I think this is some problem in some

215
00:41:14.650 --> 00:41:17.109
Liubov Klepikova: room. Not also.

216
00:41:21.800 --> 00:41:22.919
It's a pity

217
00:41:28.250 --> 00:41:29.770
that one that she's good.

218
00:41:31.150 --> 00:41:34.520
My dad, your terrible stage of these one in dawn.

219
00:41:42.820 --> 00:41:44.860
Yeah. Was it working?

220
00:41:45.690 --> 00:41:49.420
He was working 5 min enough. And then it's just stopped.

221
00:41:49.590 --> 00:41:51.860
Okay. So

222
00:41:55.840 --> 00:42:02.810
 I, we worked again. And I, I'm gonna just bring it in.

223
00:42:03.030 --> 00:42:05.260
Liubov Klepikova: Hello. hello!

224
00:42:08.400 --> 00:42:09.330
Liubov Klepikova: So

225
00:42:12.360 --> 00:42:13.700
Liubov Klepikova: doing here.

226
00:42:14.040 --> 00:42:15.020
111.

227
00:42:21.980 --> 00:42:22.940
Liubov Klepikova: Hello!

228
00:42:31.020 --> 00:42:32.970
Liubov Klepikova: So

229
00:42:38.350 --> 00:42:39.250
Liubov Klepikova: Hello!

230
00:42:52.580 --> 00:42:53.280
Liubov Klepikova: Good!

231
00:42:56.960 --> 00:42:58.210
Liubov Klepikova: Right?

232
00:43:05.330 --> 00:43:12.010
Liubov Klepikova: Because I can hear everything they say in their room. They have no idea why they don't do me

233
00:43:35.910 --> 00:43:44.869
that might be on their end. Am I saying the premise from the girl who the might be on her? Because with the microphone.

234
00:43:45.050 --> 00:43:49.009
no. So which one, are we on? We're on that one.

235
00:43:49.290 --> 00:43:54.589
Liubov Klepikova:  1, 2, 3, 4.

236
00:44:05.310 --> 00:44:06.200
Liubov Klepikova: Oh.

237
00:44:08.010 --> 00:44:09.070
she said.

238
00:44:09.140 --> 00:44:10.720
do we come back to Zoom?

239
00:44:12.340 --> 00:44:13.779
I just get someone in here.

240
00:44:21.120 --> 00:44:21.860
Liubov Klepikova: Hmm!

241
00:44:35.420 --> 00:44:38.890
To let you know what happened with the

242
00:45:02.020 --> 00:45:03.080
Liubov Klepikova: Hello!

243
00:45:10.290 --> 00:45:11.680
Liubov Klepikova: Hello!

244
00:45:12.380 --> 00:45:17.120
Liubov Klepikova: I do it constantly it because

245
00:45:17.930 --> 00:45:22.170
Liubov Klepikova: I believe they need sound to control, and if I

246
00:45:22.370 --> 00:45:25.420
Liubov Klepikova: do not speak any about

247
00:45:27.310 --> 00:45:29.240
Liubov Klepikova: it will be helpful.

248
00:45:35.050 --> 00:45:36.559
Liubov Klepikova: It's it's great

249
00:45:47.720 --> 00:45:48.530
okay.

250
00:45:58.030 --> 00:46:05.040
Liubov Klepikova:  is it better. Now, no.

251
00:46:18.290 --> 00:46:18.970
Okay.

252
00:46:19.150 --> 00:46:23.469
Liubov Klepikova: Yes. I understand on zoom with everything. All right. It says,

253
00:46:23.550 --> 00:46:25.840
Liubov Klepikova: So I'm thinking so.

254
00:46:50.650 --> 00:46:52.710
Liubov Klepikova: Hello! Again.

255
00:47:14.410 --> 00:47:15.970
he

256
00:47:19.080 --> 00:47:26.550
hey? So when I switch it over to headphones, what am I supposed to switch something over on zoom as well.

257
00:47:27.240 --> 00:47:34.390
So it just should be PC to headphones into the Di. and then I should be getting secret.

258
00:47:35.290 --> 00:47:36.729
And I'm not

259
00:47:41.960 --> 00:47:42.650
okay.

260
00:47:44.560 --> 00:47:48.970
2, 10. I've got a still on the way, but it taking ages.

261
00:47:49.880 --> 00:47:51.310
cool.

262
00:48:06.440 --> 00:48:10.930
you know, it's going to sell that tree. Okay.

263
00:48:18.830 --> 00:48:19.490
okay.

264
00:48:20.560 --> 00:48:21.360
hey?

265
00:48:21.610 --> 00:48:32.849
So I've we've lost the Dante. So I've plugged in the Di, and I've changed it to headphones. And okay, nothing. And I can't get the Zoom menu bar that it's normally there

266
00:48:33.310 --> 00:48:34.469
for some reason.

267
00:48:34.580 --> 00:48:36.120
So try this guy.

268
00:48:39.070 --> 00:48:41.430
So I'm the key to

269
00:48:42.190 --> 00:48:46.660
from the actual laptop. Yeah. what with.

270
00:48:47.040 --> 00:48:55.480
I mean, she's talking now that we can't hear. I don't actually have anything needed. Hey, guys.

271
00:48:55.680 --> 00:48:57.610
I mean, you can hear that.

272
00:48:58.040 --> 00:48:59.219
It's not coming to you.

273
00:49:01.220 --> 00:49:02.700
Yeah.

274
00:49:08.590 --> 00:49:09.360
okay.

275
00:49:12.910 --> 00:49:13.580
got it.

276
00:49:15.810 --> 00:49:17.480
Yeah. It's

277
00:49:18.370 --> 00:49:20.810
oh.

278
00:49:34.850 --> 00:49:39.090
you want to check the record. you stay here and do this because you've

279
00:49:39.490 --> 00:49:46.069
Liubov Klepikova: and now it is. It is better with the sound.

280
00:49:46.090 --> 00:49:48.210
Yeah, we can hear you now.

281
00:49:48.420 --> 00:49:51.240
Liubov Klepikova: now the sound is not choppy anymore.

282
00:49:51.320 --> 00:49:55.229
good! Good! Bring that back full screen. Yeah.

283
00:49:55.320 --> 00:49:57.569
okay, we've got you now. Thank you.

284
00:49:57.610 --> 00:50:01.209
Liubov Klepikova: I can make it to far. So yes.

285
00:50:01.720 --> 00:50:08.249
Liubov Klepikova: yeah, we can go on with the technology

286
00:50:08.760 --> 00:50:21.310
Liubov Klepikova:  go to the next slide So I I you know what? I with the moment which I stopped. Yes.

287
00:50:21.340 --> 00:50:24.590
Liubov Klepikova: right?

288
00:50:25.060 --> 00:50:27.809
Liubov Klepikova: So, okay. So I like it.

289
00:50:29.560 --> 00:50:31.090
Liubov Klepikova: okay.

290
00:50:32.590 --> 00:50:41.890
Liubov Klepikova: So I hope everything could happen. Everything so right, and you shouldn't be nervous about it. It's everything. Okay, I understand.

291
00:50:42.300 --> 00:50:43.290
Liubov Klepikova: So

292
00:50:43.430 --> 00:50:44.610
So

293
00:50:45.110 --> 00:51:14.679
Liubov Klepikova: then the second type of papers is papers using the same container in migration and transnational studies, and in Nikoli, Silla, and Andras. We will, for example, use a container to criticize the fundamentals they call the theological national reasons. That was the point I still before. So methodological nationalism is the reflection of the old research party, according to which the existence within the national state.

294
00:51:14.680 --> 00:51:22.560
Liubov Klepikova: It's a know why migration is a temporary or permanent deviation of from that norm.

295
00:51:22.560 --> 00:51:37.990
Liubov Klepikova: And in the Greek, Sheila and Andres Weima, so to expand the whole, it's out of for migration study by eliminating the first dualism of Norm and no norm. They, you see, M. Ss, and

296
00:51:37.990 --> 00:51:53.100
Liubov Klepikova: a so-called explanatory model of for harm with the logical nationalism worked. precisely. It creates the antonomy of for sovereign people norm.

297
00:51:53.210 --> 00:51:57.359
Liubov Klepikova: yes, and to migrants that to not norm.

298
00:51:57.550 --> 00:52:13.469
Liubov Klepikova: So the second type of research can also include works that use the term container in order to steady More than now, nationalism in following. I will come back to it to this.

299
00:52:13.740 --> 00:52:34.400
Liubov Klepikova: And now, second slide, I would like to present to you goals and objective offices. Report, so we will concern? Does the following problematic points related to the use or perspective of for use of concept Cms in the academic literature

300
00:52:34.440 --> 00:52:37.719
Liubov Klepikova: our key objective, just

301
00:52:37.820 --> 00:52:53.330
Liubov Klepikova: which role plays mass, stereotypes and mass media in the construction of container. Second, how the national container constructed which factors play an important role in this

302
00:52:53.340 --> 00:52:54.760
Liubov Klepikova: and sit

303
00:52:54.970 --> 00:53:05.420
Liubov Klepikova: and do the continuization process take place only in the receiving society? Or does this apply the migrants to the same extent?

304
00:53:05.950 --> 00:53:10.140
Liubov Klepikova: Now we come to the first keep objective

305
00:53:10.410 --> 00:53:29.939
Liubov Klepikova: Cms. Represents national society and culture as homogeneous whole. Close to within the strict boundaries, according to this, logic, is the whole point lies in the culture of a receiving country which turn out to be alien or to the migrant

306
00:53:30.070 --> 00:53:45.879
Liubov Klepikova: to the migrants. I'm sorry such cultural site interpretation is the most often found in the media journalistic articles as a speeches of for politician.

307
00:53:45.880 --> 00:54:02.840
Liubov Klepikova: according to this interpretation, that container is closed, was a proposed of for cultural self preservation which is written by the alien elements. This simple explanation is.

308
00:54:02.840 --> 00:54:08.779
Hi, luo. Sorry we cannot hear you. Well again. Something's happening to the sound. Maybe.

309
00:54:11.480 --> 00:54:18.609
Should I talk louder? You mean on her end, if you can, you move the slides to see if that's working like the visual

310
00:54:20.040 --> 00:54:24.299
Liubov Klepikova:  yeah, that seems to be working.

311
00:54:26.590 --> 00:54:41.479
Okay, how about Maybe if you unshare your screen and I do, do you have your presentation uploaded also? Yes, maybe we can try that. Okay, so let's stop it. Yes.

312
00:54:43.020 --> 00:54:45.379
Liubov Klepikova: the desktop, the sharing, can you? Now?

313
00:54:45.610 --> 00:54:53.470
Liubov Klepikova: Can you unshare? And then I'll open your presentation from here, and I'll help you move the slides. I did. I don't know. Maybe that could do it.

314
00:54:59.960 --> 00:55:01.010
It just

315
00:55:03.860 --> 00:55:09.689
Do you want to try talking to see if

316
00:55:11.090 --> 00:55:14.990
it's worse. Okay.

317
00:55:15.450 --> 00:55:21.100
Liubov Klepikova: it's because it's everything. Okay? I think there is

318
00:55:22.340 --> 00:55:24.679
Liubov Klepikova: with your Wi-fi.

319
00:55:26.030 --> 00:55:31.340
Sorry we we just called the technical support

320
00:55:34.990 --> 00:55:35.860
decision

321
00:55:44.910 --> 00:55:45.720
things that

322
00:56:02.020 --> 00:56:02.869
you know.

323
00:56:10.380 --> 00:56:13.359
Yeah, so she can share her screen.

324
00:56:15.230 --> 00:56:17.199
That's how it was before. But

325
00:56:17.540 --> 00:56:18.370
so

326
00:56:25.480 --> 00:56:29.770
is she to

327
00:56:32.520 --> 00:56:34.840
seeing on her computer that she can share?

328
00:56:35.570 --> 00:56:40.739
No, she. She sent me for all of that presentation, and then she can share screen from her end.

329
00:56:41.420 --> 00:56:45.230
Yeah, but when she shares she cannot speak. We cannot hear the voice.

330
00:56:45.320 --> 00:56:47.470
Liubov Klepikova: should I say again?

331
00:56:48.530 --> 00:56:50.920
Words. okay.

332
00:57:03.610 --> 00:57:05.159
What am I doing wrong? Z.

333
00:57:06.730 --> 00:57:09.470
I've got this set to headphones.

334
00:57:09.890 --> 00:57:13.849
And how do I bring up the zoom thing again

335
00:57:26.130 --> 00:57:27.140
to find

336
00:57:27.760 --> 00:57:30.109
there is something in that we have to change.

337
00:57:30.480 --> 00:57:41.710
Liubov Klepikova: Yeah, all right. Can you try speaking now? Hello! Hello! 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

338
00:57:42.140 --> 00:57:45.849
Liubov Klepikova: So now you can share your presentation.

339
00:57:46.430 --> 00:57:48.349
Yeah, sure, try again.

340
00:57:48.640 --> 00:57:52.660
okay, that's right no problem

341
00:57:53.980 --> 00:57:55.299
Liubov Klepikova: where you

342
00:57:57.130 --> 00:58:01.400
Liubov Klepikova:  it's every single right now.

343
00:58:02.770 --> 00:58:11.589
thank you. The question time is going to limit. So you can develop 2 point, but not too much. So be clear the point you want to develop.

344
00:58:11.990 --> 00:58:16.549
Liubov Klepikova:  should I? Did a talk

345
00:58:16.750 --> 00:58:22.110
Liubov Klepikova: again, or every so do you hear me?

346
00:58:24.380 --> 00:58:27.659
Liubov Klepikova: Oh, so I I continue you right.

347
00:58:28.010 --> 00:58:29.730
Liubov Klepikova: Tell me yes or no.

348
00:58:29.810 --> 00:58:32.760
In 5, 10 min we cut so

349
00:58:33.140 --> 00:58:41.660
clear the part you want to develop here. It's not my fault. Yes, yeah. But other people, after speaking.

350
00:58:41.890 --> 00:58:48.370
Liubov Klepikova: oh, so so that I I can do. Do I continue or

351
00:58:48.450 --> 00:58:50.800
Liubov Klepikova: or not?

352
00:58:51.190 --> 00:58:56.530
Liubov Klepikova: Okay. So I took it. If it's in through, you just took me into everything. All right. Okay?

353
00:58:56.690 --> 00:59:21.440
Liubov Klepikova: So media perform to function cultural. The narrative of cultural and compability is broadcast to the whole society and not just to the small parts that have in person contacts with migrants, and the second function symptomatic. This is more interesting for us because it's a signals that allow us to judge a their tendency to about containerization.

354
00:59:21.440 --> 00:59:34.020
Liubov Klepikova: In a society narrative about the establishment of public boundaries can be tricked to that, as imagines of a renewal of a national container construction, 150

355
00:59:34.120 --> 00:59:56.569
Liubov Klepikova: second key objective. The dichotomy belonging not belonging is not new. Of course Haba was a cyp into scientific need to introduce attempt containers appeared only in the last couple of decades, or there is a light in the process of globalization, transnationalism and the consequences

356
00:59:56.820 --> 01:00:15.399
Liubov Klepikova: until the middle of the second half of the twentieth century. The existence of a society within the national state was not just the social norm, but the only possible law. The situation changed by the beginning of the century.

357
01:00:15.520 --> 01:00:37.600
Liubov Klepikova: From this point of view, male nationalism is More complex because it's look like a social social A desire to turn back the gold age with the national state was the only in a frame of references.

358
01:00:38.500 --> 01:00:41.570
Liubov Klepikova: So I make it a little bit faster.

359
01:00:41.980 --> 01:00:44.880
Liubov Klepikova: So search key, objective.

360
01:00:45.130 --> 01:01:05.889
Liubov Klepikova: let us designate several question, is the national container synonymous with the State as an institution? Or if society continuous site living within the boundaries of national state. By what, in this case, do migrants also able to form their own container?

361
01:01:06.050 --> 01:01:21.109
Liubov Klepikova: To answer this question, we need to take one step back and to see the features of for living within the National Society. The functioning of society is not limited to the operation of State institution.

362
01:01:21.120 --> 01:01:32.219
Liubov Klepikova: Pierre Bougio wrote that an important component of social life is the capital that each member of society has. This is economic capital, just

363
01:01:32.230 --> 01:01:45.999
Liubov Klepikova: second social capital. So having, and the maintenance of social ties and cultural capital, this is education, knowledge, knowledge of the language.

364
01:01:46.550 --> 01:02:01.530
Liubov Klepikova: Individuals with the high share of such capital had they changed to occupy higher place in the social hierarchy. For a long time these types of capital, by acquired within the framework of national State.

365
01:02:01.590 --> 01:02:11.849
Liubov Klepikova: But just a lesson. Transnationalization partly develops the social and cultural capital acquired in national state.

366
01:02:12.140 --> 01:02:27.030
Liubov Klepikova: it led to crisis situation because individuals have you to lose that quite position is a social hierarchy. That was the reason of the images of tendency to close within the container

367
01:02:27.150 --> 01:02:35.139
Liubov Klepikova: so. and as a container in academic literature. It's usually customer to understand the

368
01:02:35.170 --> 01:02:46.609
Liubov Klepikova: the local society due to the lack of homogeneity among migrants. Their construction of separate container is not an automatic process.

369
01:02:46.670 --> 01:02:57.159
Liubov Klepikova: In this case we see the Stephen Vert so super diversity concept as more passing for migrants research

370
01:02:57.320 --> 01:03:06.790
Liubov Klepikova: simultaneously. It's not inconceivable when certain process leads to the formation of the close society within the Host society.

371
01:03:07.040 --> 01:03:10.420
The most striking example is a

372
01:03:10.620 --> 01:03:39.660
Liubov Klepikova: technical communities. At the same time, this is special situation which, certainly implies a first, a certain degree of rootedness in the host society, second, the existence of established system of social ties, and sidling their presence of certain infrastructure that make it possible to observe some more activities or tradition or retails.

373
01:03:40.610 --> 01:03:43.629
Liubov Klepikova: Oh, we come to the conclusion.

374
01:03:44.250 --> 01:03:59.070
Liubov Klepikova: Cms is the real life phenomenon e. To the radical reorganization of society. In the context of scientific research it can be used as a concept to characterize the process in modern society.

375
01:03:59.350 --> 01:04:12.660
Liubov Klepikova: The existence of society within the homogeneous national state has ceased to be the only possible norm of life. The emergence of containerization tendencies

376
01:04:12.700 --> 01:04:16.729
Liubov Klepikova: is an attempt to return to only allowable law.

377
01:04:16.870 --> 01:04:42.950
Liubov Klepikova:  the Cms. For my information most often take place in societies that can or potentially be united on the basis of one citizenship since representative of this society, or find themselves in a situation where the economic, social, and cultural capital acquired within national state can be depreciated at the transnational level. 2.

378
01:04:42.950 --> 01:04:55.870
Liubov Klepikova: The formation of the own container by migrants is a rarer process, and involves the presence of several conditions that make it possible to permanently interconnect the community.

379
01:04:57.190 --> 01:04:59.479
Liubov Klepikova: So I tried to be more.

380
01:04:59.990 --> 01:05:07.569
Liubov Klepikova:  thank for your attention. If you have any question, I'll be happy to answer them.

381
01:05:08.750 --> 01:05:13.690
So thank you for your talk. Sorry for the technical problem.

382
01:05:13.750 --> 01:05:21.970
So I keep the Id. You are the constricting the idea of a container, social container and national container.

383
01:05:22.300 --> 01:05:28.989
and you go into line the way you could have defensive container inside transnational

384
01:05:29.290 --> 01:05:31.330
society or

385
01:05:31.630 --> 01:05:38.200
defensive container inside the assembly network concerning the to a lot to our argument.

386
01:05:38.860 --> 01:05:51.610
I I keep also the argument. You could have super diversity inside national container. So it makes 2 line of rezoning. But we can go to short question, no more eyes

387
01:05:51.670 --> 01:05:54.379
and 5 min. So question in the audience.

388
01:05:57.380 --> 01:05:58.610
Christian.

389
01:06:00.100 --> 01:06:04.040
and question in this, in the assembly line.

390
01:06:06.350 --> 01:06:07.250
No.

391
01:06:07.690 --> 01:06:17.650
so if I keep a your reasoning. You are going to to issue the issue of Nationalists and defensive in a similar case inside constant analyz

392
01:06:18.120 --> 01:06:33.559
and the issue of migrants who want to move in inside the container. I want to be attracted by the container. We want to conclude a pressing hierarchy inside container. So it's 2 different topic. What are the whatever they are connecting

393
01:06:33.720 --> 01:06:41.860
inside your national place? Is it true? Is he either, and right or not this topic it back to issue?

394
01:06:43.450 --> 01:06:50.180
Liubov Klepikova: Can you please? say it again because I didn't pay you.

395
01:06:51.480 --> 01:06:55.930
you first line of rezoning is to the constrict

396
01:06:56.070 --> 01:07:00.100
national container. And to say, the key program is to

397
01:07:00.280 --> 01:07:08.419
people and thinking is moving to defensive container inside transnational society. This is one topic

398
01:07:08.590 --> 01:07:11.110
nation and

399
01:07:11.370 --> 01:07:14.100
the other topic. You develop the Me. Grant

400
01:07:15.360 --> 01:07:26.679
moving inside container. They are tracked by the container and you agree by V to that literature. We can move to superiority inside

401
01:07:27.050 --> 01:07:31.849
national container. So in social term it makes to issue.

402
01:07:32.270 --> 01:07:35.930
They are not obliged to be connected. They are connected by the price.

403
01:07:36.080 --> 01:08:05.509
but they are not collected by actor issue and process processes. Yes, this is 2 issues. But as this, they have a connection, because we have 2 controversial tendencies, because the transnationalism, of course, make some crisis situation for them societies, members who, Had already some capital, cultural capital or social.

404
01:08:05.510 --> 01:08:19.699
Liubov Klepikova: And this is tendency to to bring back the so-called gold age, where everything the national state was the only all overable norm.

405
01:08:19.700 --> 01:08:36.870
Liubov Klepikova: And this is one sentence. It's there is controversy to attendance as they are now migrants, and there are no homogeneity among migrants, because it's different migrants of a different they have different proposal, or for migration.

406
01:08:36.870 --> 01:09:00.070
Liubov Klepikova: So the building of the old container is I I have said it's not automatic process, but sometimes we can see some who to well organize well, structuralize the national communities. and as a official ethnic community. So we zoom

407
01:09:00.070 --> 01:09:09.920
Liubov Klepikova: a certain national state. In this case we can discuss the building of some container.

408
01:09:09.920 --> 01:09:20.619
Liubov Klepikova: But I thought about super device diversity of Stephen Bertrobe. When by the migration studies it's

409
01:09:20.690 --> 01:09:43.759
Liubov Klepikova: It can be more useful to use the super device. But if you have research in the receding society, how how the members of this society see migrants, so you can use a container model of society?

410
01:09:45.270 --> 01:09:49.439
Liubov Klepikova: Did I answer the question because, there is another question in the chat

411
01:09:50.610 --> 01:09:52.260
there is

412
01:09:53.280 --> 01:09:54.220
good

413
01:09:54.470 --> 01:09:57.939
 within the chart with a question.

414
01:09:57.970 --> 01:10:01.840
Liubov Klepikova: what is the difference between a system and container?

415
01:10:03.490 --> 01:10:18.559
Liubov Klepikova: So also, this container is, is not the system container. It's like interpret it.

416
01:10:18.630 --> 01:10:32.699
Liubov Klepikova: this is them model. If for example, in the media when the some social boundaries established.

417
01:10:32.700 --> 01:10:58.360
Liubov Klepikova: This is so. We have one current culture. This is special, and the migrants don't understand. It is a container they contain them has not any strict system. Every moment of for social, of political life is norms. This cultural standards can be changed. So container is not any kind of system.

418
01:11:00.610 --> 01:11:05.409
Thank you, Kripova. We have to go to the next paper and thank you for your augmentation.

419
01:11:05.960 --> 01:11:07.030
Liubov Klepikova: Thank you.

420
01:11:10.040 --> 01:11:15.550
We go to the next paper. It is a bit year long. Once word

421
01:11:16.740 --> 01:11:23.100
from Melbourne, Australia, you present your foundation and inquiry. Your title is a lot.

422
01:11:23.320 --> 01:11:28.149
So it's about body of physical science

423
01:11:29.650 --> 01:11:33.440
and an inquiry for life. Meta epistemology.

424
01:11:34.480 --> 01:11:37.360
We want to take the

425
01:11:38.520 --> 01:11:39.690
oh.

426
01:11:41.700 --> 01:11:43.100
shows your screen.

427
01:11:48.660 --> 01:11:49.530
Right?

428
01:11:50.400 --> 01:11:52.940
Help me. Your phone will be stable.

429
01:11:52.950 --> 01:11:54.860
Thank you very much.

430
01:11:56.040 --> 01:11:58.430
Try to read your your title.

431
01:12:02.250 --> 01:12:08.059
Thank you. Thank you for wanting to come to a session with this title.

432
01:12:08.140 --> 01:12:14.259
and and to hint the outcome of a life's work in research sociology.

433
01:12:14.400 --> 01:12:20.240
the generation of a very big theory. From practice-based critical inquiry.

434
01:12:20.250 --> 01:12:25.660
I hastened to say. It's a self-correcting theory in its own terms.

435
01:12:27.420 --> 01:12:34.480
I'm caught between being visible on Zoom and being heard on the microphone.

436
01:12:34.770 --> 01:12:36.950
Can you all hear me in the room?

437
01:12:38.670 --> 01:12:48.360
I cannot not, really. No, I'm not a lecturer. I'm a researcher. I' to. Sorry.

438
01:12:48.470 --> 01:12:56.159
Well, I'm going to have trouble because I won't be on the picture for the people. They'll have the

439
01:13:00.800 --> 01:13:08.970
It'll be right in front of my face for the zoom, I think. Anyway, look, let me just continue sorry.

440
01:13:09.030 --> 01:13:14.479
But before I start this presentation. I just want to. I'd like to start where

441
01:13:14.530 --> 01:13:18.919
I've actually concluded in my practice, after all these years of work.

442
01:13:19.170 --> 01:13:24.250
that everything starts in relationship and on country.

443
01:13:24.550 --> 01:13:37.220
And so I would like to greet you in the language and strong sense of relationality offered by the war. Andre, warrior and people of the cooling nation here on Peru and Mar.

444
01:13:37.580 --> 01:13:43.810
that we call the Yarra River. When they say to us, Knock and down our more cocky.

445
01:13:44.060 --> 01:13:50.099
Give me your hand, my friend. so thank you.

446
01:13:54.100 --> 01:14:06.819
and I. I can see the connections between the previous presentations. But this is perhaps not the natural home for this or it, maybe. Let's see. No need to read this.

447
01:14:06.940 --> 01:14:19.130
It's We've got a bar across the top. I don't know how to make that go away, and I presume that that's intriguing on people. Thank you so much.

448
01:14:22.890 --> 01:14:31.460
If you do the work I've done over the last 50 years with various people oppressed peoples in relation to very powerful peoples.

449
01:14:31.600 --> 01:14:36.480
 you end up with a slightly battered brain. So

450
01:14:36.940 --> 01:14:58.750
okay, no need to read all that. That's that's in the paper. But I am locating here, offering this work in Research Committee 16 and Research Committee 35 statements in the paper, so I won't dwell on it. Now, however, you will have all the detail of the slides, both in the recording of the presentation and the paper.

451
01:14:58.790 --> 01:15:01.050
And okay.

452
01:15:01.420 --> 01:15:03.970
the Arrow doesn't make it work.

453
01:15:06.730 --> 01:15:09.800
Can anyone help me with that?

454
01:15:10.340 --> 01:15:15.650
The arrows that I trialed, but just the normal arrows on a laptop

455
01:15:17.750 --> 01:15:21.020
trying to make that one work.

456
01:15:23.210 --> 01:15:28.379
Oh, that's bizarre. There we go that you think this will work. Yeah, it should work. Now.

457
01:15:28.580 --> 01:15:29.870
thank you so much.

458
01:15:32.030 --> 01:15:33.730
Okay,

459
01:15:34.830 --> 01:15:43.430
also, the publisher has given me a couple of books which I have with me, if anybody's intrigued by this theory, and would like to know more about it.

460
01:15:43.790 --> 01:16:00.949
 So I apologize here for the possibly excessive reductionism, but to help even glimpse the whole layered territory. I'm going to chunk a total of really 70 years of thinking and 50 years of working on this

461
01:16:01.140 --> 01:16:07.889
into 3 eras for succinctness, and then I'll hang the presentation on these 3 errors.

462
01:16:08.140 --> 01:16:20.870
So the first is, I would characterize as the science or research the research era of that I came into in that post-war period, external, objective positivist. The old paradigm

463
01:16:20.980 --> 01:16:29.340
was still very dominant, applying to health and human services that I would work in. And, secondly.

464
01:16:29.910 --> 01:16:32.900
evaluation began to take precedence.

465
01:16:32.950 --> 01:16:55.250
and when the new paradigm of grounded and intersubjective interpretation came to the fore. In my view this fills out the the full paradigm. The old paradigm was now, in my view, half of the cycle of inquiry, and the new paradigm is the other half. Been again quite crude there.

466
01:16:55.350 --> 01:17:08.190
and the third a shift to system, thinking that a heart back to some earlier systems. Thinking came to fill out the bigger picture for accomplishing change.

467
01:17:10.760 --> 01:17:27.730
What I was consciously doing was engaging actively in the paradigm wars to be allowed to hear effectively from service recipients and communities about their lives, families, and community needs, and from professionals and managers, about their organizational efforts to help

468
01:17:28.010 --> 01:17:31.050
and encountering

469
01:17:31.770 --> 01:17:46.810
this persistent paradox in health, welfare, and community services which I continue to be driven to critically question, understand, and attempt to resolve over the whole of my career which will lead to what I think is a real question behind this.

470
01:17:46.900 --> 01:17:54.970
But the active service in the great paradigm wars led to this partial winning of

471
01:17:55.020 --> 01:17:59.749
the the new paradigm meant. Some of us could begin to work on this paradox

472
01:18:01.370 --> 01:18:14.490
with the parties involved. So what I think I was really doing, but not wholly conscious. Then it's actually quite useful to look back on this whole life of work that I've done, and see in it a Meta-research project

473
01:18:14.650 --> 01:18:27.649
in order to come up with this matter research theory, which others did not. But I did, because all aspects of my life were here. And the real question, I think what I was asking was a Zeitgeist question

474
01:18:27.840 --> 01:18:47.089
arising from the 7 generations of my own context and my own biographic experience from a boomer's post-war standpoint, but reaching back to my grandparents generation in the 1880 S. So lived experience and memory right across all of that.

475
01:18:47.840 --> 01:18:58.820
I think I was really trying to understand. Like everyone else in my cohort. the combined catastrophe of World War Ii. Fascism

476
01:18:58.870 --> 01:19:06.450
and its brutality and authoritarian origins, and our own human species, implication in it all.

477
01:19:06.480 --> 01:19:10.609
What, indeed, would it take to? Never again?

478
01:19:11.580 --> 01:19:28.060
So there was an enormous academic literature in the post-war period, outpouring and practical social action, people's movements trying to make the changes. But here we go again. So clearly, all of this effort has been necessary.

479
01:19:28.100 --> 01:19:34.850
I was going to say not sufficient. But actually, I think the jury's out on that.

480
01:19:36.140 --> 01:19:51.140
I think we are still looking for new ways, and I'm hearing them everywhere. At this conference about solving these problems with new thinking. Now, these are the 3 books that I'm going to hang this on that kind of mark off these errors for me.

481
01:19:51.300 --> 01:20:12.049
and the first of the year of research I wrote this book to sell social research, a guide to people doing their own. I was working in state government preschool, child development cost portfolio policy making local government, community early childhood services policy implementation in practice, community needs studies, child and family statewide nursing services.

482
01:20:12.080 --> 01:20:36.580
The point there is that I got the extraordinary opportunity of working on long projects that went from top to bottom, that went from the most central and a separate away from the local area where the services were being delivered, and then right ground down into the ground, right into kitchen kitchens, to sit around kitchen tables and devolved conversations. 2 big takeaways.

483
01:20:36.760 --> 01:20:50.330
I saw that in the practice of the hitherto binary separate paradigms of inductive theory building and deductive theory testing were actually sequential in a logically joined up epistemological cycle.

484
01:20:50.570 --> 01:20:54.219
I declare the paradigm was over. If people want it.

485
01:20:54.250 --> 01:20:59.220
figure implications also find my practice. So, firstly, the epistemology.

486
01:21:00.050 --> 01:21:11.889
the old paradigms were binary. This will be familiar to you. Down, down the left hand side, abstracted body of knowledge, and so on and then down the right side, situated field of in subjective local knowledge.

487
01:21:12.150 --> 01:21:22.730
value-driven, and so on. What I'm about to show you in the next cycle diagram about how these join up. Very helpful. I your your way of thinking about this because

488
01:21:22.880 --> 01:21:38.339
I knew that from this grounded research that kept going up and down. that the way to you've called it contained. But in these groups, and as we researched our way

489
01:21:38.390 --> 01:21:59.620
it was the grounded nature of all the parties to the inquiry, who were in actuality and in practice in action, who were then observing that action, and then reflecting on it, and so on, and then abducted new viable theory that that did push the realm of the possible right to the edge.

490
01:21:59.620 --> 01:22:16.340
and with the the head of steam driven by values and understanding what it was that was problematic about the previous structures. pushed beyond what is usually considered the realm of the possible.

491
01:22:16.710 --> 01:22:19.320
So here's the epistemological cycle.

492
01:22:21.160 --> 01:22:42.700
I've probably only got time to just briefly say this. But so you start in the bottom left-hand part, where people are busy in action, and they're looking at the action and observing it. And then there's a face change at the bottom there from that grounded observation, critical detection of discrepancy, either something wrong with the system.

493
01:22:42.700 --> 01:22:54.580
The work that was being done isn't having the effect it should have, or whatever if it wasn't in the logic of what was going on. Everyone's saying, it's fine. We're doing what we set out to do.

494
01:22:54.840 --> 01:23:16.709
You're in the territory of the unknown, and yielding to try and see and feel and detect a way forward that leads into this new ways of meaning, making interpretation, theorizing reflection, dialogue, wider context, diverse experience, open and out, come up with a new synthesis.

495
01:23:17.770 --> 01:23:21.859
See the implications of new theoretical conclusion.

496
01:23:24.390 --> 01:23:41.319
define and calculate logical consequences. Judge fitness for trial which Arian was talking about most articulately, plan and implement and administer whether it's experimental in labs or it's experimental in the actual practice and then go around that cycle again.

497
01:23:42.250 --> 01:23:56.439
My practice change. I started as a traditional researcher. My research sent out by authorities on the left hand side out to find out what the people in the communities needed.

498
01:23:56.480 --> 01:24:18.669
and then come back and report it, and by doing that I, before I did that, I began conversations with the service providers, and began dialogues between these. So I went from being a messenger one way, report back and be told. That wasn't what they thought, whoever the they was, that I, at any point in that

499
01:24:18.690 --> 01:24:32.900
to seeing that everyone was actually inquiring. Everyone had answers. Everyone had perceptions, they had reasons for their perceptions. They've been going around that cycle themselves all their lives from their particular standpoint. So

500
01:24:33.010 --> 01:24:36.239
here, here's all those parties now

501
01:24:36.290 --> 01:24:53.969
coming into dialogue, sitting around the table. You'll see everyone smiling. I'll raise later the paradox, again, about how there's immense conflict in any system. When you bring together people with very different interests and very different standpoints, very different conclusions from very different ways of inquiring.

502
01:24:54.110 --> 01:24:55.070
But the

503
01:24:55.230 --> 01:25:01.380
 the big conclusion I took about away from this stage. This era of research was that.

504
01:25:01.770 --> 01:25:03.160
or research.

505
01:25:03.220 --> 01:25:18.520
actually, evaluation were grounded in these ordinary human inquiry capabilities. Where we're taking actions, we're practicing doing. We're carrying out the logic of whatever it was that we previously concluded was the thing to try or do.

506
01:25:18.610 --> 01:25:23.139
we're managing, repeating patterns we're defending, we're extending.

507
01:25:23.170 --> 01:25:24.469
And then.

508
01:25:24.510 --> 01:25:38.660
for whatever reasons we observe them, we're observing them to make sure we're still fitting within the original logic, or we're observing them and beginning to feel things aren't quite right. We're noticing monitoring, checking all of these words.

509
01:25:38.890 --> 01:25:53.810
and then we might take those observed actions into deeper reflections, conversing dialogue, critically and appreciatively comparing, relating, valuing, identifying, interpreting.

510
01:25:53.810 --> 01:26:10.959
explaining, synthesizing theorizing, creating constructing, deciding, narrating, and on the basis of all those reflections, insights, and ideas based on real observations, on reality actions concluding, defining, abstracting, deducing.

511
01:26:11.230 --> 01:26:20.449
If this, then, we should be trying that. Let's try this conjecture. Calculate judge, design, organize, test, experiment in action and round again

512
01:26:22.080 --> 01:26:50.479
I saw how this was embodied in each individual person around that table. Everyone was taking in information through observing, sensing, or intuitive, now processing it, by evaluating, reflecting, concluding, deciding, organizing, judging, using rational feeling, or rational thinking about rational feeling, whether it felt right or good, bad, rational thinking. It would work. If this, then, that if that, and acting on it, repeat cycle.

513
01:26:52.860 --> 01:26:59.030
not just people, but all living systems. There is no time in 15 min to do justice to all 4 of these

514
01:26:59.070 --> 01:27:23.700
disciplines that I want to show you how I brought them together. But I'll hang this here even though it didn't come to a bit later. The same inquiry processes every live in the audience is taking in information, processing it and acting on it continuously to form and reform the organism within ecosystems. Here's fungi as full cycle researchers.

515
01:27:23.700 --> 01:27:40.420
top left-hand corner. the fungi is on a sugar cube, and it's using up all its resources and starting to feel a discrepancy between its existing living system and the conditions for for life.

516
01:27:40.520 --> 01:27:49.089
So it starts reaching out and relationally into its environment, and to whatever it can find or feel its way towards that finds another sugar cube.

517
01:27:49.290 --> 01:27:52.809
and it heads towards that sugar cube changes its action

518
01:27:54.250 --> 01:27:55.979
and takes a new form.

519
01:27:57.700 --> 01:28:08.200
So this is just the continuing cyclic process of living systems. It's the life cycle. It's familiar to you. All. The colors are roughly seasonal

520
01:28:08.420 --> 01:28:15.429
as a way of finding from. But the start again in bottom left for fruition, break down.

521
01:28:15.660 --> 01:28:23.170
I move into, yield, receive the epistemological term in China, yield, receive

522
01:28:23.190 --> 01:28:45.250
into chaos connections, but morphogenic field form incarnate, expand to critical mass get across the next phase, change of viability, and the kind of calculations Arie is making, and then organizing and ordering and replicating and firing up the form, the containers, the boundaries, the

523
01:28:45.260 --> 01:28:46.320
that

524
01:28:46.650 --> 01:28:47.370
but

525
01:28:47.470 --> 01:28:52.489
a living system remains open. It's permeable so that it can change.

526
01:28:53.580 --> 01:29:04.699
A new systems made was emerging from the post-war surge of publicly funded health, Human and community services, evaluation, important ways. This jumped the shark. This was the book I produced from this

527
01:29:04.810 --> 01:29:23.199
early 80 S. To early 90 S. And near evaluation, old issues superseded. I was working in State Government Committee health and other policy making, moving to national public health policy and research, community health and general practice moving into other areas and disability services. Integration

528
01:29:23.470 --> 01:29:24.350
that

529
01:29:25.240 --> 01:29:45.039
good news and bad news, value-free debates were over, the values had become visible and driving, including for the value-free part of the cycle. Every decision is driven by so valorization! As did the associated feelings whose feelings and what values, and

530
01:29:45.040 --> 01:29:59.769
enter the political science language of stakeholders to which I've added stake owners as a way of describing a stakeholder for whom it's all for multiple perspectives standpoint. And then the audit versus develop

531
01:29:59.930 --> 01:30:02.510
that.

532
01:30:03.580 --> 01:30:11.679
there's a paradox Kerber share bear. have I been going for 20 min?

533
01:30:12.280 --> 01:30:13.320
Okay.

534
01:30:14.270 --> 01:30:17.239
that's the 30 min of one distribution.

535
01:30:19.660 --> 01:30:26.029
How long am I able to speak for another 5 or 7 min?

536
01:30:31.490 --> 01:30:32.300
Okay.

537
01:30:32.760 --> 01:30:40.960
people weren't able to co-inquire full, quiet, full cycle. And that's when everything went wrong. This is the big book that's come out of the whole of my life's work.

538
01:30:41.520 --> 01:30:54.810
Any of continuous quality improvement was the way the management and organisation of the services saw it. I worked in a long engagement with consumer staff collaboration to change acute psychiatric services.

539
01:30:54.830 --> 01:31:18.529
and then in these other areas, so that I expanded across a wide range of areas to test and check all these assumptions. So before I talked about the human inquiry, capabilities that get us right around the cycle. We all do all we all can do, all we all do all, and we have preferences, especially in crises, and it's a matter of preferences.

540
01:31:18.530 --> 01:31:34.510
And this is insights that have come from the Union understandings about how living systems live, and the Myers and Briggs women's addition to that that filled out the full properties of living systems in that way of thinking.

541
01:31:34.540 --> 01:31:41.960
But the inquiry capabilities are full cycle. We've all got all of that to get round. But the preference is a part cycle.

542
01:31:41.969 --> 01:31:44.910
and we have characteristic reach from that.

543
01:31:45.200 --> 01:32:01.150
But I think this is how we become the self-organizing. What are poetic societies that we are or are not, because the greatest risks are where there are persistent dominance or absence of any part of the Inquiry cycle, where power operates to

544
01:32:01.190 --> 01:32:04.159
stop the inquiry in whatever way.

545
01:32:09.150 --> 01:32:32.839
you'll have to think about that later. But this is this is the epistemological wars, the paradigm wars across these are the facts. There has to be a meaningful new theory. Someone has to listen care. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate, implications and consequences? How can we inquire individually and collectively, full cycle, inclusive of all the differing inquiry preferences?

546
01:32:33.600 --> 01:32:59.489
2 strategies at any scale 10 questions get you right around the cycle and organizationally over the 50 years we've managed to build in not just quality assurance of the container on the left hand side, the current actions that rigidify but open it up with new inquiry, open inquiry, critical and appreciative empowerment, capacity, building, quality, improvement of services, policy, evaluation, planning and program.

547
01:32:59.719 --> 01:33:06.450
From all this I concluded this, all was at least scale up. It's all sociological domains.

548
01:33:06.790 --> 01:33:21.189
All large and small systems were complex living organisms in more or less connection with each other, displaying systems, properties, communication, feedback, defensive routines, boundary maintenance, permeability, dynamic stability, purposeful

549
01:33:21.270 --> 01:33:31.450
systemic process for getting from what is to what could be then sustain what works is what now is. And then round the cycle again, continuous human inquiring was key.

550
01:33:31.610 --> 01:33:45.919
These are the sociological domains, Matt. If you think just briefly about the bottom of the cycle being about how you get into a new change. These are the movements for social change. So at a higher, larger scale.

551
01:33:45.940 --> 01:33:47.139
and so on.

552
01:33:47.430 --> 01:33:59.970
In conclusion, the 4 strands of disciplinary thinking. I saw 4 corresponding cyclic patterns of epistemology, psychology, sociology, and bio ecosystems.

553
01:34:01.350 --> 01:34:13.460
and one day they all came together on my desk when I was working in the National Center for epidemiology and population held at a strain national universe a single Eureka moment, the most exciting moment of my life. There is a technical picture of it.

554
01:34:13.490 --> 01:34:15.990
Yes, that's what happened inside my brain.

555
01:34:16.530 --> 01:34:26.069
I've written about that experience, and there it all came together. A new way of thinking about the active inquiry is the dynamic of life, forming and reforming continuously.

556
01:34:26.690 --> 01:34:36.700
There they all are. Thank you. And here's some consequences of the epistemological shapes. If we need something to look at to discuss it.

557
01:34:36.790 --> 01:34:37.930
Thank you to you.

558
01:34:41.070 --> 01:34:54.189
Thank you for your paper. You have a short question. It's what you do after the big bank just starting again. Now I think you pepper compliment. Well, very well the first paper about the way

559
01:34:54.850 --> 01:34:56.870
to ordering experience.

560
01:34:57.630 --> 01:35:05.540
But you have to add a lot of experience, because you are especially in inquiry, in sociology, inquiry in human life.

561
01:35:05.700 --> 01:35:10.540
and you know the metadata of evaluation. So he has the exclusion of ordering that.

562
01:35:10.950 --> 01:35:21.120
But you also the question of ordering your personal experience of as researcher. So you go to. Otherwise you to issue the issue of a

563
01:35:21.970 --> 01:35:24.880
human inquiry capability, which is a tough

564
01:35:24.910 --> 01:35:27.380
topic. Perhaps you develop in one box.

565
01:35:28.140 --> 01:35:44.419
and you also the issue of a Meta cycle of knowledge, which I'm a little bit obvious, because as research, a lot of exponents and survey, we want to complement. We want to make addition of different server inquiry.

566
01:35:44.750 --> 01:35:55.389
Sometimes it's possible to go to cumulating sometime you have to be selective. One research is one experiment, and there's a research in another paradigm. Another experience.

567
01:35:55.580 --> 01:35:58.280
It's not possible to join.

568
01:35:58.440 --> 01:36:08.579
The style of rezoning is a sort of inquiry, but I don't want to fit my foundation. First, it must make a continuity. His question from the audience

569
01:36:09.390 --> 01:36:11.729
or from the flow, we go on better

570
01:36:12.880 --> 01:36:13.710
the

571
01:36:15.030 --> 01:36:22.280
 I feel like I'm in a

572
01:36:22.430 --> 01:36:27.150
Karaoke bar now, holding the microphone.

573
01:36:27.830 --> 01:36:37.400
Thank you so much for sharing your really beautiful journey, and thought over your over your lifetime of practice. That's really interesting. I have so many questions.

574
01:36:37.650 --> 01:36:57.179
I think I'm just gonna ask one for now. But I'll email you later. The the one I wanted to hear more about was like whether you thought there was any kind of like, maybe like a political agenda in in what you're doing, and I don't necessarily mean that, like in terms of like capital, P. Politics, but like whether you had maybe some political commitments to

575
01:36:57.200 --> 01:36:59.900
why, you've to undertaken spelling out

576
01:37:00.130 --> 01:37:05.609
the way you think in your in your career. Absolutely. The next slide is

577
01:37:05.660 --> 01:37:16.510
other consequences of this thinking, what shape are we in? And you might see in those shapes that match the different parts around that cycle when they become extreme.

578
01:37:16.530 --> 01:37:29.030
Power of cruise! So interestingly, some people's response to my work has been to say, I can't see power, and other people have gone.

579
01:37:29.220 --> 01:37:36.670
This is a whole new way of seeing power, and the latter is how I see it? How do we accrue?

580
01:37:36.960 --> 01:37:55.509
What, what is the power and the power? Epistemologically, in my view? So centers on certainty of at the top of the cycle where we've come to conclusions about what is the new theory that we'll try out, and then it gets embedded, and and

581
01:37:55.620 --> 01:38:00.800
The the strength of that sense of certainty in that

582
01:38:01.020 --> 01:38:05.510
 a rational moment of thinking through.

583
01:38:05.590 --> 01:38:26.899
This is the right way to go. It gets across the phase change. If it can get past gatekeeping that says it won't fit. It's too different from the existing situation, and then how to go back into dialogue to try and open that up. If there's urgent, you know, and the worse it gets, the harder the boundaries become

584
01:38:26.900 --> 01:38:39.770
and the more defensive the system becomes. So you're constantly working to achieve dialogue across difference, and all the different voices around that cycle who are reacting to the other

585
01:38:39.850 --> 01:38:48.679
impositions of whatever it is if it goes into dominance, and but the top is the

586
01:38:48.700 --> 01:38:58.700
the hard power moment of that in terms of certainty, and the bottom is the soft power. Moment of yield. Receive uncertainty.

587
01:38:59.700 --> 01:39:13.830
and we like certainty, and when we're in certainty we are very certain, and people go. Oh, I haven't had a chance to think it through yet, and I'm not so sure but you seem to know what you're doing.

588
01:39:13.840 --> 01:39:28.220
And then we get the lead. And we've we've actually been enhancing that for a long time after an era where we enhance the dialogue, and the reflection and the interpretation of women's ways of knowing kind of approach.

589
01:39:28.340 --> 01:39:46.919
And my view is that we are only going to survive as a species. If we can restore a dynamic balance, not an equilibrium so solid balance you back to containers, but a dynamic, a moving, stabilizing, moving, stabilizing

590
01:39:46.960 --> 01:39:57.349
by going around this together in whatever the together is. So it does argue about scale of who comes together. And

591
01:39:57.450 --> 01:39:59.320
I have organised

592
01:39:59.740 --> 01:40:10.739
quite successful groupings of people with those different preferences. For a while managerialism realised the one person with that view was

593
01:40:10.850 --> 01:40:24.480
not working, and they had leadership teams. And then they'd have a variety of voices for a while, until those voices got pushed out as well, and it became another monoculture.

594
01:40:24.760 --> 01:40:26.920
so

595
01:40:27.050 --> 01:40:33.139
I don't know how our species is going, I trust, because I've now learned to trust the whole

596
01:40:33.160 --> 01:40:55.610
ecosystem organism. you know the yelling and shouting and brutality that in their reactivity I see it as stress reactivity. I see that people coming from their different preferences, not understanding the people who are coming from, and the people who do come from those preferences understand those people completely, differently. And

597
01:40:55.790 --> 01:41:12.980
you know we we are in a chaos or a morphogenic field. So it is about the connections, I think, that get made in in, in interactions between people, genuine dialogue, not just telling each other things. Or you know, it's

598
01:41:13.580 --> 01:41:23.890
it's about restoring those ways of relating as the human living systems, so that we don't become a machine

599
01:41:25.030 --> 01:41:32.399
unless your preferences and your community of interest thinks the machine is better, but I now know why they think that.

600
01:41:39.860 --> 01:41:48.030
Thank you for your testing when you got a long-term quarrel. So where you are moving between different domain of knowledge.

601
01:41:48.200 --> 01:41:56.159
I think it's what you call auto poetic. The way to address a new domain, to understand the domain, the code of the domain and to move to another domain.

602
01:41:56.240 --> 01:42:07.209
We used to call autopilotic times as some new development of what we today. But my question, but not obliged to respond. There is a tension between autocratic and evaluation.

603
01:42:07.230 --> 01:42:13.249
When you put too much evaluation on the right knowledge, the certainty already inside the domain.

604
01:42:13.370 --> 01:42:23.280
You reduce the price for to pay tick. If you mean by evaluation an audit review. No, I want to argue concerning your career, and you

605
01:42:23.460 --> 01:42:25.589
your inquiry on human life

606
01:42:26.330 --> 01:42:47.259
autopilotic is more important than evaluation. We need a variation in research in this way of thinking. A valuation is integral to autopoesis, because evaluation is the the the sense of a discrepancy between, and is in an order and and is, and and not not.

607
01:42:47.530 --> 01:42:53.530
and that is the distinction that drives the

608
01:42:53.710 --> 01:43:00.159
movement and change towards either the more life giving and or not.

609
01:43:02.280 --> 01:43:24.169
I do make the balance between evaluation and autopsy. Too much evaluation could kill your own capability of autopilot. Much of a particular kind of evaluation. Too much of anything around this cycle will lead to the death of the organism. Ultimately, for a long time. We're very adaptable, and we live

610
01:43:24.240 --> 01:43:28.650
like in little boxes, or whatever, for a long time, or we

611
01:43:28.700 --> 01:43:46.079
We are pushed out of shape. quite a lot. We are in a room that has no windows. I cannot see nature, but the first people tell me that we are still on country. So they are holding a connection to the living systems, the earth and the

612
01:43:46.110 --> 01:43:50.489
the nutrients, and so on, on which we all depend, as though

613
01:43:50.600 --> 01:43:58.310
evaluation or research or positivist research, or any of those

614
01:43:58.700 --> 01:44:06.069
any of those shapes. If you stay just in one of those shapes you will be in trouble. You won't get to

615
01:44:06.100 --> 01:44:14.920
get get through that inquiry process. That's my few. Thank you. Now we have to close the session. Thank you for all you free

616
01:44:15.290 --> 01:44:18.269
the paper while def but some collection