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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005