From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gwi.net> Subject: More on Bhaskar & Bourdieu Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:24:19 -0500 George Free wrote: > There's a brief discussion about Bhaskar and Bourdieu in Bridget > Fowler "An Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu's Understanding." (Theory, > Culture and Society, 1996 vol 13, no.2). I haven't read Bhaskar myself, so > I can't comment on it. I'd like to hear more though. Thanks for the cite, I'll be interested to read that. Per your request I'll expand somewhat on Roy Bhaskar and critical realism, but I'm not certain if this discussion belongs list-wide or should go private, so I'll try to be brief. Bhaskar views himself as an "underlaborer for the sciences," in the sense that he strives to provide them a philosophical groundwork which recognizes that knowledge is socially produced, but refuses to lapse into the notion that the world is entirely socially or discursively constructed, maintaining instead that for the most part the world (including the social world) is independent of our thought. His work started out in the philosophy of natural science, then broadened to encompass the social sciences and issues of philosophy itself. I think one may say fairly that Bhaskar aims to elaborate the philosophy underlying marxism, and to develop it further (at times, critically). Nevertheless, he and others recognize that marxism is just one possible critical realist social theory, and that critical realism can supply a theory with philosophical and methodological coherence but cannot by itself prove it to be true--the theory needs evidence to clinch that point. (For what it's worth, I gather Bhaskar is gaining recognition in Europe, but he's still little known here in the U.S.) Among Bhaskar's major points is the distinction made above between the world as an object of thought, and our thought about it. Closely following this is the idea of ontological stratification: critical realism maintains that reality is *not* all on one level, that of experience, consciousness, or discourse. Instead, the world is highly stratified, and at its foundation are numerous underlying structures and "generative mechanisms" which possess various powers and susceptibilities. (They range from physical ones such as atomic and chemical structures, to biological ones like physiological and ecological systems, to social structures such as the mode of production and sex/gender relations.) Powers and susceptibilities are causal properties, and in fact Bhaskar argues that what defines something as "real" is not its perceptibility, but its causal efficacy. Such structures and mechanisms interact in various ways, resulting in actual events; and some events become experiences. So consciousness and its contents are the tip of the ontological iceberg, the contingent products of a myriad underlying dynamics and conditions. Bhaskar calls these ontological strata the real, the actual, and the empirical. The upshot is that there really is a real world outside our minds, we really do have access to it, but much of the world cannot be perceived by the senses, and so knowledge of it is often indirect and requires thought, skilled observation, and *work*--which supports the position that knowledge is socially produced, and incidentally also means that it's quite possible for a theory to be wrong. The world is stratified in another sense as well: entities can interact in such a way that they create new beings. For example, chemicals can combine into molecules that gather into life forms; new life forms develop, and (as things worked out) led to humans; out of certain transformations in feudal society, capitalism arose; and there are many other examples of this sort of development, for which Bhaskar uses the term "emergence." The emergent entity possesses new properties or powers which can't be reduced to those of the entities it came out of (life is not simply chemical, society is not simply biological), even though the "lower" level remains a condition of its existence. Bhaskar calls this analysis "emergent powers materialism." One of these emergent entities is human society, which for Bhaskar involves humans' emergent power of intentional embodied agency. At the heart of this argument is the recognition that reasons have causal efficacy and so must be understood as real; because of this, social analysis must investigate people's own understanding of their actions--among other things. Society in Bhaskar's view cannot be reduced to individuals or their reasoning: they remain distinct but closely related--more exactly, they are the condition for each other's existence. Bhaskar has developed what he calls the "transformational model of social activity," in which society is the necessary historical and ontological condition of people's actions, but those actions ultimately reproduce and/or transform society. For its part, society is an ensemble of structures, practices, and conventions, that Bhaskar has described as a system of positioned-practices. Knowledge, being the result of social practices, is necessarily shaped by the history, society and social position from which it emerges: Bhaskar calls this "epistemic relativism." However, the fact that theories are socially conditioned and transient does *not* imply that there are no grounds for preferring one theory over another. Bhaskar rejects such "judgmental relativism" (the notion that all beliefs are equally valid): on the contrary, the evidence drawn from the world remains, and we decide which theory most adequately accounts for it ("judgmental rationalism"). Thus the theory of oxygen, though it could (in principle) someday be superseded, is still better than the theory of phlogiston, and the earth still orbits the sun rather than vice versa. That will probably suffice for a nutshell summary. As I suggested in my previous post, I think Bourdieu would feel quite comfortable with much or even all of this. I don't think there's any question that he believes we have access to the world outside the mind or that knowledge of it requires analytical and empirical research, otherwise his use of surveys would be pointless and irrational. His "structuring structures" have powers and susceptibilities, along the lines of Bhaskar's real entities. Bourdieu clearly sees society as a system of positioned practices distinct from the individuals who occupy those positions; and so forth. Others who have written about social theory from a critical realist or similar position include Margaret Archer, Jeffery Isaac, Russell Keat and John Urry (together), Peter Manicas, and William Outhwaite; I haven't read the last two, but the others are definitely worthwhile. Recently Andrew Collier published an introduction to Bhaskar, which I just bought and have only leafed through, but it looks good. And of course there's Bhaskar himself, but if any of you are interested in reading him, I think I should warn you that his recent books are marred by an extremely difficult, almost impenetrable writing style; in fact a year or so ago he won an "award" for the world's worst scholarly prose. Personally I find Bhaskar rewards the labor, and likewise it's worth noting that the person who nominated him for that "award" is one of his supporters. But I'd recommend starting with his earlier writing, such as *A Realist Theory of Science* and *The Possibility of Naturalism* (and, I'm told, *Reclaiming Reality*--I haven't gotten around to that one either). Finally, there's an e-mail discussion list on Bhaskar sponsored by the Spoon Collective. I hope this has been helpful. --- Tobin Nellhaus nellhaus-AT-gwi.net "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce ********************************************************************** 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