Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 17:20:43 +0100 (BST)
From: Karl <kam13-AT-hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Bourdieu: realist, materialist...?


Hi Carsten,

> I can accept this on the condition that it be clear that this position
> expresses a sort of Anglo-American epistemological ethnocentrism in the
> sense that you can make sense of Bourdieu's position by comparing it to
> something known to you, in casu critical realism. 

Is it ethnocentric in the sense that it is Anglophone?  Would it be
ethnocentric no longer if say some key texts in critical realism were
translated into other languages?  Or is it to do with it 'being known' to
someone, in which case I must admit that I'm all rather new to critical
realism.  I'm unclear on this.

Since this position is
> not known to me, however, it conflicts with *my* epistemological
> ethnocentrism (neither I nor anyone around me have ever heard about Bhaskar
> or critical realism, except on this list). But on the other hand I and my
> colleagues in Denmark have a direct (if small...) knowledge of the
> epistemological traditions to which Bourdieu himself refers, i.e. Kant,
> Neokantians like Cassirer, sociologists like Durkheim and Weber who in some
> ways may be considered as inspired by the turn of the century
> Neokantianism, and the (as far as I know from Johan Heilbron's The Rise of
> Social Theory) Neokantian interpretation of Comtean positivism to which the
> French tradition of "historical epistemology" (Bachelard, Canguilhem) is an
> heir. Bourdieu (and Foucault), then, may be said to be firmly founded in a
> Neokantian tradition (and, of course, a lot of other traditions, among them
> the Marxist), which remains little known in English-speaking countries.
> This is to say that for someone who knows this tradition (if only a little,
> I am no philosopher), to compare Bourdieu's position with that of critical
> realism is no explanation or guide to understanding but rather the
> contrary, a blurring of references and an obliteration of quite real
> historical connections. 

Ah, I think I get the drift.  What one person may term critical realism in
shorthand, I think you're saying, needs explanation to others.  Quite
right and regardless of nationality etc.  But this is negated as soon as
what critical realism is is explained, isn't it?

I understand where you're coming from, so to speak, with the above
argument. I'm sure no one (or perhaps I'm idealistic) is trying to
exclude anyone on the list.  the list allows us to ask questions: 'what /
who do you mean?  please explain...' etc.  But surely, if we stay with
what we already know, we'll never get any further.  

And this is, I want to maintain, very much a
> problem about the international circulation of ideas: if a comparison
> between Bourdieu and CR may be illuminating for those raised in an
> Anglo-American tradition, it is misleading for other Europeans (and
> probably downright incomprehensible to the French).

Again, I could give myself as an example... English I may be, raised in an
Anglo-American tradition yes, but this did not include critical realism.
It did include those well-known Anglo-Americans Bourdieu, Foucault,
Gramsci, Adorno, Marcuse, Schopenhauer, etc etc (tongue in cheek).

This is turning out to be probably the most interesting discussion for
quite a while.  I am also intrigued by the expression 'octopus in a
garage'!

Best wishes,

KArl

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