From: S.Pines-Martin-AT-iaea.org
Subject: RE: Sociology or epistemology ?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:50:12 +0200


Jukka wrote:

Greetings!

I think this is as good point to "contribute" to discussion than any
other:

> The only epistemology that sociologists need is to be convincing in
> there empirical works.

I don't think any kind of empirical work as such makes a substitute
for epistemology. Rather it's methodology that's sociological
counterpart to epistemology in philosophy. I think you were aiming at
this. It's the same thing with "metaphysics" or "ontology" proper:
we'd better concentrate on sociological theory instead of trying to
provide empirical arguments to logical problems.

Part of the problem is of course that PB himself is trained in
philosophy instead of sociology. It's understandable that he tends to
talk about ontological issues and such. And he had something to say
about, say, "social ontology" (remember his criticisms of
neokantianism in his book on theory of practice,
"Outline"-and-something in English). However it's our job to notice
the differences between these two "fields" and act accordingly. It
doens't make any sense to repeat the results of latest survey to
someone who tries to figure out whether "Being" (all-that/what-is) is
basically "ideal" or "material"...

Yours, Jukka L


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. I do not claim to
be especially bright in philosophy nor in sociology, and am merely
interested in both, for practical and intellectual reasons. 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. But I'll go along with it and say:
isn't there a traditional conflict in France between philosophers' and
social scientists' vie for intellectual/cultural hegemony? Forget the
fields for a moment. It seems to me that many of the reactions for or
against "philosophy", or being "empirical", or whatever, only reflect
these tensions. Are they really conducive to a proper understanding? To
claim that everything is "social", and the proper medicine is
"sociology", is only to make things social --in a bad sense. But there
could be a good sense too... 
Yours,
>Sergio
**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu