Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:02:41 -0500 (EST)
From: George Free <aw570-AT-freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Bourdieu and structuralism


On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Barberi Alessandro wrote:

> I am an austrian student in Paris and I want to join your little debate
> about Bourdieu. I am working with "historical epistemology" about the
> history of historiography and I do not agree with everything y o u say!

	Life--and email lists--would be pretty boring if we all were in 
perfect agreement! :-)

> Remember: Bourdieus approach refers definitively to the German tradition
> of "Wissensoziologie" (=soziology of knowledge) which was worked out by
> Marx and also Max Weber. This was also a new perspective in french
> debate, which w a s orientated on Durkheim. But: An epistemological
> approach could show that Marx and Weber are some discoursive machines -
> fabricated in 19th century - which appear in Bourdieus theory.

	Yes, Bourdieu's work does continue the sociology of knowledge 
tradition of Marx, Weber, Mannheim (and many others)--mediated by the 
anthropological tradition of the Durkheim school. But, are you saying 
that Marx and Weber belong to 19th century only? Sorry, I don't 
understand what you are getting at here.

 I would
> say that it is absolutely impossible to construct an "espace
> social"(Bourdieu)arround an "espace epistemologique" (Foucault).
> Epistemological orders are n o t social orders and I do not think, that
> Bourdieu is right, when he says that the epistemological critique needs
> the soiciological critique. 

	I would have to hear your reasons for believing this in order to 
comment more. However, its my view that Foucault's analysis of 
epistemological structures is *implicitly* sociological. The structures 
he analyzes are not transcendental, but are internal to discourses that 
are the product of specific social groups. Unfortunately, Foucualt does 
not take the next step in his critique of transcendental philosophy and 
show how epistemological structures are also social relations specific to 
their social field.

I would say that sociological construction
> needs epistemological critique. The main philosophical problem, and do
> not forget that Foucault was a philosopher, is the term "objectivation"
> followed by "objectivation of objectivation". There was a very
> interesting debate about Heidegger: Derrida criticises Bourdieu for this
> terms, and I believe that he was right. For me it is clear, that
> Bourdieus theory can not handle with psychological perspectives, and his
> writings about Freud and Lacan are really not satisfying. I am also not
> interested in conxcepts like "unconsciousness" etc., but I believe, that
> it is necessary to unscrew new epistemological approaches in reflexion
> on this traditions.

	I think Bourdieu would agree that sociology needs 
"epistemological critique" in the sense that sociologists need to be 
aware and self-consciously critical of the epistemological 
presuppositions of their research. But, I'm not sure if this is what you 
are getting at. I haven't read Derrida's critique of Bourdieu, so can't 
comment on that. The idea of 'objectifying the objectifyier' refers to 
the reflexive turn in Bourdieu--that sociological self-awareness allows 
us to grasp--and thus control--the social conditions that affect us. The 
notion of nonconsciousness is very important here. Sociological 
reflection brings to light the social structures are that implicit--but 
unthematized and unrecognized--in practice.
	
 You wrote, that Bourdieu does not fall back into the
> problems of subjectivism. This might be right, but he falls back into a
> sort of new Universalism or Objectivism. (call it secondary Universalism
> or Objectivism): In fact, he is the m a s t e r of explaining social
> conditions and it seems very interesting, that he is not able to
> "objectivate" his universal position. For example: He critizises in
> "Homo academicus" the habitus of intellectuals, but I heard him say: "I
> am the most recognized author in the world". Quelle honte!

	It seems to me that Bourdieu is constantly making the effort to 
apply his sociological tools reflexively. For him, universality is an 
historical accomplishment--and one that arises largely out of greater 
social and historical self-consciousness of one's own position. _Homo 
Academicus_ is an analysis of Bourdieu's own world--and thus in many ways 
an analysis of himself. He is not 'criticizing' the habitus of 
intellectuals in any reductive sense, but is seeking to become more aware 
of the social conditions that determine the formation of this habitus.
	BTW, Bourdieu is one of the most frequently cited authors 
according to the Social Science Index (if I remember correctly). 

 In Paris
> there are more and more critics of his "genius" position.	
> Although his concepts (habitus, practice, capital etc.) had been very
> important for sociology as an institution and a discipline, i do not
> believe that his theory of a "champ scholastique" is able to describe
> exactly the work and social conditions of philosophical debates. Even
> though Bourdieu has an "aggregation" in philosophy he is not a great
> philosopher. But if you want to do a sociology or an ethnology of
> Philosophy, it is absolutely necessary to know all the subtleties of
> philosophical discourses.
> 
	The sociological method of interpreting works of culture stands 
or falls on the basis of whether or not it can adequately explain all the 
subtlties of the works it analyzes. I think Bourdieu's analysis of 
Heidegger is quite illuminating in this regard--he uncovered subtlties of 
expression that had been completely overlooked by previous philosophers. 
Unfortunately, most philosophers are contemptuous of sociology--and 
rarely deign to read it.
	Thanks for your intervention.

cheers,
George

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