Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 19:47:36 +0100 (BST)
From: Karl <kam13-AT-hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Karl: Autonomy, Academia and Market Forces



Dear Simon and all,

> A busy week. Thank you for your clear explanation. Why do I find myself
> wanting to defend Bourdieu's approach? Perhaps I'll find out by giving you
> a response.

Personally I am not wanting to attack Bourdieu's approach, but to develop
it, to avoid the 'my mother drunk or sober' approach which (whilst in no
way referring to your good self here) often seems to pertain in matters
relating to particular thinkers.  Bourdieu might say that we should make
his concepts 'groan and protest' in empirical application, but this is
insufficiently Bourdieuan.  Firstly, it seems to suggest that although
slightly bent out of shape, the theory can remain as it was, it doesn't
suggest theoretical development (indeed, an argument could be made that
the conceptual framework hasn't developed in a very long time).  Secondly,
it might lend itself to reproducing what he argues against: the social
division of intellectual labour - 'Bourdieu's theory and my empirical
research'.  

So in raising this and other issues as problematic, I'm trying to
strengthen his approach rather than bury it.

> Firstly, I think there is a problem with extending the infinite regression
> of the relationship X(y). To reduce the complex set of relationships
> involved in the discussion of an issue and the observation of that
> discussion to this it pretty risky. 

Of course.  It was not intended as an account of research in action, but
merely a heuristic shorthand to make a point.  

To extend it as XXXX etc. is possibly
> losing the plot. 

In what way?  (It wasn't 'XXXX', to be pedantic).  I didn't wish to write
a post which would go on forever.  Also, this is merely the direction
which Bourdieu's approach indicates.

I think I understand what your trying to emphasise here.
> However, I would say that in practical terms of conducting an investigation
> about something, the physical context of the problem giving rise to the
> investigation generally has a habit of remaining dominant. In fact, it
> would seem to me that this would have to be the case. Otherwise it wouldn't
> constitute a problem, wouldn't disturb the philosopher's XXXXXXX as it
> were. 

Yes, in action it probably would, I agree.  I don't think we are at cross
purposes here.  But because that is how it might be sidestepped in
practice does not mean it is an epistemological basis for research. After
all, social science proceeded quite happily before Bourdieu (to use a
relevant example) began highlighting problems and issues and defining
solutions.

> The immediate and most concrete problems are therefore of great interest.
> This is how I understand Bourdieu's interest in the educational
> institution, the immediate field in which he is immersed. 

I'm not sure I agree here.  How would one characterise (in these terms)
his concern with nineteenth century literature?  Or with Algerian houses?
Or with his theoretical discussions of the logic of practice?

> In relation to another point you raise, there is a question about the way
> an investigation is to be reflected upon. Perhaps here Bourdieu's
> recommendation of a reflexive sociology of knowledge may be seen in terms
> of an advocacy for the power and social productivity of his discipline. I
> remember reading him in advocate mode on this though I can't cite the
> source. In some ways this second point may be linked to the first, in that
> Bourdieu may want to argue science is at this historical moment suffering
> as a result of a dearth of reflexive sociology. His practice might
> therefore be said to be derived to address a problem in knowledge specific
> to the historical moment. 

This may be right.  But I still insist that reflexivity is not
epistemology, however virtous it is and whatever errors (in terms of logic
of model for logic of reality argument) it may help to avoid.  On its own
it does not save the sociology of knowledge from a slow slide towards
relativism.  (Perhaps the only thing arresting this slide in Bourdieu's
approach is the fact that his claims to science seem to be taken at face
value by many.  Did not Bourdieu teach us to make a break with
participants' own accounts of their actions?).

With best wishes,

Karl Maton


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