Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:42:56 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FCnter?= Trendler <trendler-AT-rumms.uni-mannheim.de>
Subject: Re: Bourdieu and structuralism (reply to havard nilsen)


At 16:42 10.02.97 +0100, you wrote:

>However, in your further remarks, you seem to put Bourdieu into a crudely
>na=EFve relativistic position, and even an ABSOLUTE RELATIVIST, which is, as
>is well-known, completely selfcontradictory. Thus, this part of your
>argument is mistaken:
>

Dear Havard

I definitively have to object to this! Obviously not Bourdieus but my
position is relativistic and it=92s not one of absolute/naive relativism and
least of all selfcontradictory. You might call it cultural relativism, or in
our case relativism of discourses. What I want after all, is to preserve the
autonomy of specific discourses (e.g. sociological, epistemological,
psychoanalytical etc.). Since every discourse with an specific vocabulary,
based on special institutions etc. has it=92s own raison de =EAtre, even so
there are some overlappings, above all in the same culture. Because of this
autonomy there is a boundary of sense, which can not be crossed, without
falling into senselessness. Within a discourse I can differentiate between
right and wrong, and that only when this words are used resp. make sense in
it, but discourses as wholes can=92t be false, closer to reality etc. Hence a
critic of sociology from the standpoint of epistemology is not possible, for
it always would remain immanent, at least so long as they consider
themselves autonomous and use (at first sight similar) words in individual
ways. It would always be only a critic from the standpoint of the
commentator. Objectivism in sociology is not identical to Objectivism in
epistemology! And the power of an argument in a domain would not be
perceived as such in the other. The words are used different! Surely some
vocabularies (e.g. in the same culture) could collapse into one discourse
without loss of sense, but this would then be a new different one.

This argumentation suits also my relativistic position. It is not
selfrefuting resp. my viewpoint is not transcendental. My arguments rely on
two facts: 1. I may dwell in different languages and their background (I=92m
an authentic bilingual) and so I can experience the differences between them
(i.e. I can=92t live in both at once!) 2. There are cultural forms (e.g.
rituals, games etc.), which I don=92t understand at first sight, since they
are autonomous.
My Weltanschauung is always centered around a culture, but I also accept others.

Tschuess
Guenter

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