Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:25:32 +0300 (EET DST)
From: j laari <jlaari-AT-cc.jyu.fi>
Subject: RE: Sociology or epistemology?


Sergio, 

I didn't had particularly you in mind when I wrote what I wrote. Your
explanation -

" I think I have been misunderstood in my attempts to discuss the
"materialism" issue. My problem was not to figure out whether "Being"
is basically "ideal" or "material", but why such vocabulary turns up
in a discourse that purports to have nothing to do with it. "

- is well taken. I too find it quite interesting that it's on the list
on Bourdieu that the question on materialism emerges. I find him
exceptionally clear materialist. Therefore I don't think pursuing the
issue is worth of bandwidth.  (Well, there's of course always the
question concerning the concept of materialism lurking behind the next
corner...) On the other hand there are folks who are studying the
basics and desperately trying to find out what the hell 'materialism'
really means. However, figuring that out would take another list
Philosophical-materialism-and-social-theory or somesuch.  Perhaps
Spoons...?

Secondly - well, I'm not sure whom you imply by 'discourse' (above) -
whether PB himself or folks at Bourdieu-list (or both) won't have
anything to do with "such vocabulary", as you say, it still has
certain significance. That is, it isn't totally insignificant whether
our very basic concepts or categories are of idealist or materialist
nature. Thinking that doesn't necessary improve anyone as a
sociologist or whatever, but it may give us some clarity in relation
to concepts we use so that we can avoid conceptual confusions.  My
interruption was based on idea that expressions such as "materialist
sociology" or "sociological epistemology" (despite the fact that I
have used them, too, and probably will use them in contexts where I
can't grant that everyone knows exactly the specific phil. nature of,
say, epistemology or materialism) might be confusing, because they
combine philosophical threads or disciplines with sociology. Thereby
the differences between phil. and soc.  tend to be wiped out and the
result wouldn't be particularly enlightening for anyone.

" As to this loose talk with "fields"? I find this disturbing. I often
hear people speaking of "fields", or of their, or this and that
person's "habitus" with the greatest self-assurance. This seems to me
somehow irresponsible, something fashionable. "

Personally I don't find it disturbing. Think about children in the
park.  According to their ages and sex they tend to have different
kind of games.  And they really try to keep the borders between the
games clear. So they have "fields". And what we as humans are is quite
a lot about what and how and where we play our games. Not all but
quite a lot. And from sociological point of view, in my opinion, its'
exactly PB's effort to theorise "field" and "habitus" with a single
brush, so to speak, that is very promising.

There surely is more to individual than what is described and
explained in sociology (or any other human/social science, for that
matter), but the question is: what theory or theoretical tools account
in most economic and effective way the basic characteristics of
individual in relation to his/her social environment? And vice versa:
what theory draws in the most effective way the basic contours or
structures of some social formation (say, a group), its internal
workings ("logic"), its relations and nature of them to other
formations and (finally) to individuals belonging to that particular
formation?

One point in favor of PB: in "standard sociology" (whatever that
means) it's supposed that we are individuals, and yet social
environment constitutes us as "agents" or "actors" (whatever). Yet
there haven't been much theorisation on the problem that follows from
this reasonable basic supposition: what and where our individuality
resides if we are of our social environment? How should we think of
individuality (as something different to social world and "psychic" or
somesuch functions and structures of social origin) in relation to
social world? PB's and his forerunners' work on the concepts of
habitus and field has been important in bringing (theoretically,
conceptually) together the basic threads of human individual and of
more or less immediate social world where he/she acts ("field"). It's
economic and powerful effort.

Next, Eric disagreed with me. I had difficulties to grasp his point.

I was saying that let's keep the differences between philosophy and
sociology clear - despite the fact that PB utilises phil. concepts
quite often - in order not to bring empirical arguments to logical
discussion. The point is about conceptual clarity.

Eric wrote: 

" Epistemology is a rationalisation a posteriori of the practices of
scientists. "

According to certain empiricist doctrines.

" So there is no "logical problems" for sociology, only interpretative
problems of the empiric facts. The only sociological problem is : how
to explain this attitude or this behavior ? "

Sociology made easy! Deny it and bring behaviorism back! You must be
joking.

In fact *logical problems* are present always and everywhere when we
are trying to say something; to describe, to explain - whatever. I
can't grasp from where this recent anti-intellectualist trend comes
from. Not from PB, that's sure. "Logical" and "empirical" aren't in
contradiction. The former concerns the concepts and use of them, the
latter the sensual. That should be clear.

" So the theoretical sociology proceed of practical and empiric
problems (Durkheim : how explain suicides ?) and not of an abstract
epistemology. "

Well, I'm not sure what the point is, but surely I wasn't saying that
theoretical sociology should proceed according to any epistemology.  
Rather contrary.

" all Bourdieu's work is to construct a empirical sociology and to
avoid philosophical way of thinking the social facts. "

I'm speechless.

Yours, Jukka L

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