The very productive debate in Sociologica shows that second-order observation is not needed to see more, but to see that one does not see, i.e. to see blindness. Reflexive blindness reflects on itself and produces a different kind of insight, whose reference is not a supposed world outside but the way observers observe. The debate highlights not only the blindness of finance, but also a certain blindness of the sociological observation of finance and even the blindness of observation theory itself. To see it can become an advantage, if inserted in an ongoing conversation.
Observations on a Conversation: Reply to Commentary / Esposito, Elena. - In: SOCIOLOGICA. - ISSN 1971-8853. - ELETTRONICO. - 7:2(2013), pp. 26-30. [10.2383/74855]
Observations on a Conversation: Reply to Commentary
ESPOSITO, Elena
2013
Abstract
The very productive debate in Sociologica shows that second-order observation is not needed to see more, but to see that one does not see, i.e. to see blindness. Reflexive blindness reflects on itself and produces a different kind of insight, whose reference is not a supposed world outside but the way observers observe. The debate highlights not only the blindness of finance, but also a certain blindness of the sociological observation of finance and even the blindness of observation theory itself. To see it can become an advantage, if inserted in an ongoing conversation.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris