From: "Michael Kelly" <mhk-AT-LANG.SOTON.AC.UK> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 18:40:50 GMT Subject: Re: Habitus Robert You wrote > Hmm, why Bergson and not Durkheim? Condorcet? Yes, why not all of them. Since Durkhein was 'sociology' he is much more obvious in some ways, but the French intellectual tradition is very much linked in with (dominated by) philosophy in ways that non-French specialists may overlook. Hence Bergson as well. (I'll need to think about Condorcet). >And there's still the question > of the appeal to French rather than the various German sources. I also feel > it's as technical a term as a writer wishes to make it; 'habitus' is just > the Latin for 'habit'. Indeed, it appears that rendering it in another > language appears to constiture precisely such as attempt to *make* it a > technical rather than everyday concept. > Yes there is a certain fluidity about the notion of 'technical terms', and introducing a foreign synonym is a standard way of making a term technical. One of the daunting responsibilities of translating a text into another language is having to decide which terms to treat as technical and translate in a consistent way. No doubt translators have both created and extinguished technical terms, including perhaps 'habitus'. ------------------------------ Prof. Michael Kelly School of Modern Languages University of Southampton, U.K. E-mail: mhk-AT-lang.soton.ac.uk Fax: +44 1703 593288 Tel: +44 1703 592191 (direct) ********************************************************************** Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005