Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:30:34 +0900
Subject: Bourdieu died today.
From: "Jean Christophe Helary" <helary-AT-eskimo.com>



What if France had know that Mitterand had a cancer while he was President.
You might know that in France, when the President is gravely ill he can be
relieved of duty. Mitterand lied about his health and so was able to stay in
power.

Of course, Bourdieu's case is quite different. He has no responsability that
would force him to declare his state of health. I believe though that  his
death would affect a lot of people (scholars included).

I guess it is important for a man like him to be sure that his "followers"
credibility will not be affected by his sudden illness or death.

I remember that case of l'Abbe Pierre in France who was slowly replaced by a
famous person (I don't remember his name though). I guess the process with
Bourdieu involves a lot more. The importance of Bourdieu (comparable to
Chomsky ???) in the intelectual/activism field puts a lot more at stake than
an old priest (well, in my point of view).

I guess a lot of people in the media (the "journalist-intelectuals" as he
calls them) would be very very quick to dispose of the body and silence the
less famous members of Raison d'Agir for exemple.

I think the parallel between Bourdieu and Chomsky makes sense in a way.
Chomsky, as an anarchist does not (seem to) have to project to survive his
own death, and there is no "official" group that would take over. Bourdieu
seems to act in a different way. I don't know which of Chomsky or Bourdieu
is easier to understand, is more useful in our analysis of society or is
more active to propagate his thought. I just perceive two very different
ways to use to the media even though they look very similar.

You of course know that as an intelectual Bourdieu stands on his own. As an
activist though, and contrary to Chomsky, Bourdieu is only a member of
Raison d'Agir. In fact I remember clearly a few years ago, when RA was just
created that Bourdieu insisted on being considered just as a member and not
as a speaker. I think it is in Le Monde (?) that RA first explained what
they were and that Bourdieu, even though an important member of the group
was just a member. Since then, they kept signing their articles Raison
d'Agir (well, as far as I remember).

This is directly related to Bourdieu's conception/analysis/usage of the
media.

Bourdieu's health or sudden death would affect RA's ability to work in any
way, because the media is barely allowing them to speak "for" bourdieu. So
even though as an intelectual he will be still "active", as an activist he
will be gone. And to a lot of people, it is only this part that matters,
because most of them don't have the social ability to understand what he
says. They just see that when he/they talk, the media reacts.

By the way, talking about Bourdieu and his work (only) on this list is, in
my opinion, another way to play the game of the media. It looks like a lot
of us (well, I can't blame anybody) did not see what happened in France when
RA started to act. So we only discuss (when we do) about the "theory", and
not (well, maybe I missed a lot of posts) about the "action".

As sociologists, or normal lazy bums at work killing time on the net, we
also need to address the action side and get ready for Bourdieu's death.

ps : I am sorry if this mail looks weird. Sometimes I think I'm loosing my
english ...


Yours,

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