Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:13:42 -0500 (EST)
From: George Free <aw570-AT-freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Sociology and epistemology


On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, Carsten Sestoft wrote:

> But then there is a somewhat different difficulty when dealing with objects
> in which the division between text and context is inscribed, one with which
> I have struggled for a long time, and which I will try to say something
> about. If you talk philosophically about philosophical texts, or
> scientifically about scientifc texts, or as a literary scholar about
> literary texts, then you are expected to talk about everything in these
> texts, or least about so much as possible. If you are to make a literary
> analysis of a poem, then you must be able to account for everything in the
> poem; if you are to analyze the arguments in a philosophical text, you must
> account for all of it. This is not possible when you analyze the relation
> between the text and other texts and the relation of this system af texts
> to the social positions of their producers. Or maybe I haven't done my work
> (on the trajectory of the French writer Georges Perec) properly. At least,
> it seems to me that it will never be possible to make an exhaustive
> analysis of the text when inscribing it in these relations. In most cases
> the description of what is properly sociological, i.e. related by
> difference, opposition or hierarchy, in the relation between texts, is a
> few general properties: Perec's novel "La Vie mode d'emploi" (1978)
> reintroduces prolific narrative combined with a subtle formalist
> construction in a field where both of these properties, not to mention
> their combination, represented something new and highly distinguished in a
> certain section of the field; the central story in it is an allegorical
> reflection on art and life, a wellknown and higly appreciated property for
> high literature, etc. But then what about the millions of other subtleties,
> stories, autobiographical inscriptions and so on? I don't see how I could
> possibly speak about all that when studying the place of this novel in the
> trajectory of Perec. This will often seem to be a sort of failure of the
> metod from the point of view of those who defend the internal reading
> (based on the division of text and context): its way of accounting for the
> texts seems to be much more "superficial" than the wellknown methods for
> internal reading. I don't know if it is. But I think that this problem, if
> it is a problem, lies in the construction of the object: when you want to
> account for the relations between "prises de position" and positions, then
> everything that is not related to other elements of the same kind simply
> becomes invisible and must be described as an effect of the "practical
> sense" of the agent, as a sort of sociological underdetermination. And this
> will of course also be the case when talking sociologically about
> epistemology: what epistemologists love to speak of will be touched upon
> only in a rudimentary manner. (It is of course different when the
> sociologist talks about the epistemology of sociology, i.e. is not taking
> epistemology as an object for study.)
> 
> I don't know if am explaining this clearly, but it seems to me that there
> is a problem, at least for me, converted from the perspective of the
> literary scholar to a sociological perspective; but I would be very
> interested in comments and suggestions.
> 
	My own view is that a sociological reading can--or, ultimately,
should be able to--account for everything in a work. But here a lot
depends on the question of how the object is constructed. Most traditional
literary/philosophical readings do not construct their objects well. For
the most part, the text (which is read entirely without regard for
context, as if it existed in some ideal sphere of canonical works) is
reduced to a kind of ink blot, in which the critic sees whatever he or she
(unwittingly) projects into it. Thus you get a whole history of
readings--all of which can be seen as merely symptomatic of their time and
place. In addition, traditional readings are largely guided by some
religious, political or moralistic interest. They are designed to score
some kind of theological, political, ethical point. In this connection,
the literary scholar and philosopher traditionally viewed themselves as
protectors and advocates of a certain cultural standard of morality and
taste.
	By contrast, a scientific reading is guided by the question as to
what constitutes the objective identity of the work, that is, how is it
(the work) distinguished within the particular field in which it was
produced or in which it later circulates? Probably, no single study could
account for all the distinguishing features. Any study, sociological or
otherwise, must select those which are most pertinent to the aim of the
investigation and limit itself to the study of them. 
	The idea that works possess objective properties--and have
distinguishing features, whose main lines can be drawn fairly rapidly--is
not congenial to traditional critics who want to use the occasion of their
reading to deliver a moral sermon. Part of the implication of the
sociological approach is that it demands or entails a rethinking of the
social role of the intellectual. In this connection, I think Max Weber
definitively sketched out the new view of the intellectual in his essay on
Science as a Vocation.
	. . . just a few quick thoughts, based on my own research into 
these issues.

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