From: AHAGGERT-AT-aol.com
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:27:33 EST
Subject: Re: Games, Wittgenstein and the Logic of being too long-winded for anyone


In a message dated 2/26/99 9:06:52 AM EST, S.Pines-Martin-AT-iaea.org writes:

<< Perhaps you can help me here because, honestly and quite seriously, I have
 tremendous difficulties understanding this common critique to Bourdieu,
 i.e., that he does not account for transformation, resistance, etc. >>

Emrah & S.Pines-Martin:
Thanks for *both* your replies. Frankly, the two most interesting things here
(to me) are the (a) the willingness to accept a basic PB framework & (b) a
cheerful willingness to dispense with the aspects of that framework which are
not so helpful to a specific project. I also have a lot of trouble with the
"common critique" that PB "does not account for transformation, resistance,
etc."; but a lot of my problems with this "critique" have to do with the fact
that in my particular area (Irish studies) nobody else really satisfactorily
accounts for "resistance," either, even if such an account is often held up as
a kind of Holy Grail. For myself, at least the concepts of habitus & field
have allowed me to introduce into evidence, as it were, a great deal of
empirical information which would have been otherwise disallowed (at least,
for me personally, a vigorous Bourdieuian defence has thus far allowed me to
stave off the cranky Foucauldian on my dissertation committee). I'd be willing
to bet that specific "Bourdieuian" concepts are always very powerfully
reinterpreted according to the specific circumstances of their
reception--maybe a useful caution for folks on an international email list.
Please let us know the issue of your work, Emrah--
best,
Andrew Haggerty 
**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu