Developing a Communicative Imagination Under Contemporary Capitalism

Abstract

Any time a field considers its domain, topics tend to dominate thinking. Not surprisingly, reflections on domains tend to conjure up inventories of the issues scholars in the field study, how topics have shifted over time, and topics that are likely to be on the horizon. Such analyses lead to questions of boundaries-where the edges are, what distinguishes "us" from "them," how "we" might expand "our" territory, and whether we should be building fences or bridges. Boundary-based thinking implies a similarity with those inside a domain and distinctions to be drawn against those outside.There are many good reasons to think about where a field's boundaries lie. But starting a consideration of domain with boundaries is not particularly helpful. It directs attention to divisions and jurisdictions; it suggests that unless there is internal coherence, a field cannot exist; it says little about either contribution and (individual and collective) trajectory or conceptual and empirical innovations that require traversing or violating boundaries. Boundaries-based thinking occludes our view of the possible.Furthermore, when we think of domain in these terms, we quickly recognize that departmental or disciplinary affiliations are of declining relevance. Family resemblances form around puzzles and problems rather than