File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2000/bhaskar.0004, message 46


Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 02:20:12 +0200
From: Par Engholm <pereng-AT-mail.anst.uu.se>
Subject: Re: BHA: Neglect of Bhaskar/Philosophy of Science


Salut, chers amis,
I have been following the recent discussion on the possible ways of getting
CR off the ground and into more 'respected' areas of intellectual
discourse, and I find it most interesting to hear about the prospects of
finding some common ground between CR and the work of Pierre Bourdieu. I am
currently writing a PhD on the epistemological and metatheoretical
foundations of Bourdieu's work, and in this work I strive to formulate some
synthesis of Bourdieu's version of the historical epistemology and
(dialectical) critical realism.
	Unfortunately, strictly terminological matters could be as important as
more substantial matters as sources of disagreements. In the case of
Bourdieu, he is often trapped in a French discourse in which the very term
realism evokes ideas of foundationalism or epistemic absolutism.
	Thus, Bourdieu often speaks of the need to 'escape from realism' (which
according to Bourdieu lies at the bottom of providing an adequate theory of
the social space in general and the class system is particular), or the
'theoreticist illusion', 'which grants reality to abstractions'. In this
connection, Bourdieu rather conforms to a nominalist position, and although
he never entirely falls into the radical neo-Kantian position where any
claims to knowledge of the Ding an Sich is considered to be preposterous,
he certainly seems to be a lot closer to Weber and the ideal type, than to
realist modelling, in his view on models and theoretical constructs.
Furthermore, the merefact that someone pays attention to the role of the
(social) researcher as intervening in the the 'real' course of nature does
not make him a critical realist. 'The Craft of Sociology' is no more CR
than 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'.
	Still, I would say that there are very promising prospects of a fruitful
synthesis between some of the central themes of Bourdieu's œuvre and
critical realism. I find especially his idea of the social space being
structured of a set of overlapping fields, where the macro-features could
be described just in terms of the interval struggles over the legitimate
hierarchisation of the specific (symbolic) capital appreciated in these
specific fields as a very fitting way of substantiating some of the claims
of the structural forms of social life. In this manner, we may reconcile
the antagonism between Platonic transcendence and Aristotelian immanence. A
problem with the position held by Bourdieu is that he, in conformity with
the poststructuralist tradition, seems to forget the existence of anything
outside relations or the play of differences. In the words of structural
linguistics, there is no referent to the unity of the signifier and the
signified. This 'Saussurean abyss' is forcing him into most awkward
predicaments (as in the analysis of social classes) where he explicitly
denies the very existence of any substance outside relations. Bourdieu here
lacks any notion of existential rooting (a notion which eh would probably
denounce as 'substantialist', a manner of thought with which one must
break), which we may find in e.g. CR.
	However, I am not sure whether such strategies may help to advance the
position of CR within the academic community, or even convince
Bourdieusians on the fruitfulness of having some CR underlabouring to their
sociological work. Often those working within this ambit seem terrified by
the very word realism, and consequently reluctant to be awaken from their
constructivist dogmatism.
Best regards,
Pär Engholm

-----------------------------------------------------------
Pär Engholm; Par.Engholm-AT-soc.uu.se
Uppsala University, Dept. of Sociology
Box 821; SE-751 08 Uppsala; SWEDEN
Phone: +46 18 471 6228; Fax: +46 18 471 1170
Home: Botvidsgatan 14 B; SE-753 27 Uppsala
Phone: +46 (0)18 696348; mobile: +46 709 783546
http://www.soc.uu.se/staff/par_e.html




At 09:52 2000-04-11 -0400, Erik Weissengruber wrote:
>I have been mulling over strategies to get CR accepted as a new kind of
>interdisciplinary "common sense," and the postings of the last few weeks
>have been quite stimulating
>
>
>A recent author wrote ...
>
>>the bulk of the social scientific community simply can't be bothered
>>to get to grips with RTS. This would involve getting to grips with the
>>philosophy of science and their knowledge of that seem reluctant to go
>>beyond Lakatos, Popper and Kuhn with the odd reference to Feyerabend thrown
>>in.
>
>A key part of Pierre Bourdieu's project seems to be informing the
>formulation of social scientific questions with epistemological questions,
>particularly in the philosophy of science.  
>
>Bourdieu (at least in "The Craft of Sociology") discusses the work of the
>sociologist as a kind of practice, an intervention in the real that (under
>ideal conditions) creates a dynamic interplay between theoretical
>constructs and empirical observation, a practice that has effects (good or
>bad/desirable or undesirable) in the entire field of social practices.
>
>Despite Bourdieu's avowed anti-ontological stance, he seems to be close to
>a lot of CR ideas about the social sciences, the historical situatedness of
>knowledge construction and the intransitive aspects of the real that
>condition it etc.
>
>So Bourdieu's innovations in reflexive sociology might be one tangent for
>the introduction of CR ideas to the social sciences.
>
>NOTE: Bourdieu does this amazing dissection of the
>postivisist/intutitionist debate, asserting that both extremes actuall call
>for and enforce the presuppositions of one another.
>
>Moreover, he tackles the individual/collectivist dyad by suggesting that
>both persons and large groups are observable entities -- but that the real
>difficulty for sociology lies in finding the hidden RELATIONS between these
>types of observable/measurable entities.  
>
>Bourdieu would see relations existing on the same ontological plane as the
>observed entities (if he were pushed into an ontological corner), whereas
>the CR tradition would look at the causal mechanisms that, because they are
>more fundamental, permit observable entities to come into being, yet there
>seems to be a great similarity between the two traditions
>
>END OF SERMON
>If a French sociologist in the 60's and contemporary CR seem to be
>operating on the same wavelength, perhaps we can begin to look at other
>fields of knowlegdge that are experiencing a reformulation of their
>fundamental assumptions, and suggest that CR is a way of addresing many of
>these.
>

>>

-----------------------------------------------------------
Pär Engholm; Par.Engholm-AT-soc.uu.se
Uppsala University, Dept. of Sociology
Box 821; SE-751 08 Uppsala; SWEDEN
Phone: +46 18 471 6228; Fax: +46 18 471 1170
Home: Botvidsgatan 14 B; SE-753 27 Uppsala
Phone: +46 (0)18 696348; mobile: +46 709 783546
http://www.soc.uu.se/staff/par_e.html


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005