Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 12:37:52 +0100 (BST)
From: "Alan C. Hudson" <ach1005-AT-hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Fields and circles


Dear Hagen and everyone else,

Thanks for your helpful comments about fields. I'm not familiar with 
Weber to be honest, but the idea of concentric conceptual circles 
makes sense.

That said, it's still pretty circular isn't it? Still leaves 
the issue of defining the boundaries of fields. Does a concept make any 
sense if one can not say where it ends? Does that make it mean everything 
and hence nothing? Just thinking ...

I really appreciated the "belief in the game" aspect of fields that Hagen 
mentioned. This, at least, would seem to provide some basis for 
delimiting fields.

My angle on this is a similar problem in "Regulation theory", with trying 
to define what regulation is. It seems to be pretty much everything which 
facilitates (maybe unintentionally) the reproduction of society. It seems 
that one needs to specify the object/field of regulation (what is being 
regulated), pragmatically, in order to be able to say what regulation is.

Any comments?

Oh, and thanks again to Hagen, and the other folks who e-mailed me privately.
Much appreciated.

Cheers,
Alan

PS: Still looking for a brief definition of "fields"!

*****************************************************************************
Alan C. Hudson,

Department of Geography,		and		Fitzwilliam College,
University of Cambridge,				Cambridge,
CB2 3EN,						CB3 0DG,
United Kingdom.						United Kingdom.

Tel: 	+ 44 (0) 1223 333349 (Department - Direct line)
Tel:	+44  (0) 1223 333399 (Department - General Office)
Fax: 	+ 44 (0) 1223 333392 (Department)
E-Mail: ach1005-AT-cam.ac.uk
*****************************************************************************

**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu