Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 20:47:36 +0100 Subject: Re: actor, agent Op zondag, 28-jun-98 schreef Lene Berg: LB> 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? regards erik *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Erik Hoogcarspel < jehms-AT-globalxs.nl >< Boerhaaveln 99b > < tl+31.(0)104157097 >< 3112 LE Schiedam > < fx+31.(0)842113137 >< Holland > *===================================================================================* ********************************************************************** 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