From: kent.lofgren-AT-pedag.umu.se
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1904 00:22:07 +0200
Subject: Kelly's q. on games


>What I meant to say was that the analogies of gameplaying (and, for
>example, Calhoun's examples of basketball players and stock traders) are
>fairly stereotypically gender-specific (competitive team sports, lots of
>nondiscursivity) and therefore arguably androcentric.

Hi Kelly and all others! It's been silent for some time now and I
appreciate your question. It is, in my opinion (and I think you are with me
here?), to simplify things to see a phenomena as a sport, a game (like: in
a basket ball game). The social world is a lot more complex that any basket
ball or cricket game can ever be. And I agree with you when you say that,
in this example, it is a male-centered language to use "game" as
metaphorical example for a phenomena.

>My question, then, is : are the analogies/examples simply insufficient to
>the concept of habitus (which is not androcentric) or do some of you hold
>that the concept itself is. I am subscribing to the former, not the
>latter.

I don't think the term "game" is all bad, because my reflex is to link it
to L. Wittgenstein's philospophy. I am not sure, but, in regard to the term
"game", doesn't Bourdieu build partly on the texts by Wittgenstein, who has
written about "games people play" in respect to languages? In that sence,
to answer your interesting question Kelly, B is not referring to sport (But
you knew that of course), which is a male activity, invented by males for
males, but instead partly "back" to a Wittgeinstein:ian philosophy. I hope
this clarifies B's use of "games" (Here, if anyone care to comment my
statement about Wittgenstein, Bourdieu and games, I would be more than
grateful.)

I'll expand this conjunction a bit, so I'll add something to this lists.
Wittgeinstein talks about a perplexing, philosophical dilemma (He was,
after all, a philosopher), namely that of "private languages". If a person
invents a language, that only he or she is aware of, can we talk about a
"language" then? Partly yes, partly no, since a langauge requires atleast
two indivuals participating. Now, follow me in a big, cognitive jump to
Bourdieu and habitus and games, please. Isn't Bourdieus sociology
suggesting, in my interpretation, that the same is applicable (in
principle) in regard to habitus? It takes two to tango, and a single
individual can not form a social field if the individual develops a habitus
with apsects of it being un-interesting to the rest of the world. Our lives
here on earth, in terms of our meetings, marriages etc., can therefore be
understood as part-taking in games where private, un-reconized habitus are
of little or no value.

Regards,

Kent Lofgren

University of Umea
Pedagogiska Institutionen
S-901 87 Umea
Sweden
Tel: 46 + (0)90 - 786 64 32 (office)
=46ax: 46 + (0)90 - 786 66 93
----------
Not: Batteriet i min dator =E4r slut, och jag har inte hunnit byta det.
D=E4rf=F6r st=E5r det ibland knasiga datum och klockslag i mina e-mail. Det kan
till exempel st=E5 "datum 1904 01 01".
----------


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