File spoon-archives/bourdieu.archive/bourdieu_1998/bourdieu.9806, message 33

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 20:47:36 +0100
Subject: Re: actor, agent

Op zondag, 28-jun-98 schreef Lene Berg:

LB> Why is it that actors has to obey the rules of the game more than agents? 
LB> To me it seems like the contrary is just as plausible.
LB> On what do you base the notion that actors acts more rational and 
LB> predicable than agents (or anyone else)? Is it the fact that s/he has 
LB> written lines, defined scenes, and a rehearsed end to carry out?  
LB> Or do you use "actor" as a sociological term, which does not correspond 
LB> with what the word actor describes outside of the sociological field?

I presumed the latter was the intended meaning in the discussion.

< snip >

LB> I do not see that the word agent gives more sense to Bourdieus concept of 
LB> habitus, at least not when he speaks of social games and stakes. An agent 
LB> is a representative, an officially chosen delegate (according to the 
LB> dictionary). It lacks the possibility of individualistic variations and 
LB> the sense of complete presence in the game that the word actor contains. 

I thought that the word 'agent' too was used in a sociological sense here and my suggestion was that in that sense it gives more room to the Bourdieuian thought of the interaction between behaviour and habitus. BTW, does anyone know whether Bourdieu has been influenced by Meleau-Ponty in this?  



  Erik Hoogcarspel           <     ><       Boerhaaveln 99b     >
                             <    tl+31.(0)104157097    ><       3112 LE Schiedam    >
                             <    fx+31.(0)842113137    ><       Holland             >



Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005