Subject: RE: The content and the context
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:30:08 -0300


This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.


OK Hugo, I agree with you. La distance et la meconnaissance  -Bourdieu
dixit- sont tres liees a la reconnaissance. Dond je ne pourrais jamais faire
une critique moralisante a propos d'une telle curiosite a propos d'une
dimension aussi importante de la biographie ou la trajectoire vitale d'un
des protagonistes le plus important du champ intellectuel et politique de la
France contemporaine.

Bes wishes. Emilio
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De:	bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> [SMTP:bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]
> Enviado el:	Miércoles 19 de Mayo de 1999 06:41
> Para:	bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Asunto:	Re: The content and the context
>
> At 08:13 PM 5/18/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >Oh, please, let's end with this 'celebrity' and 'morbid curiosity' talk.
> >What do you mean by a 'celebrity'? Of course he's not a 'Hollywood'
> >celebrity, but of course he's an 'intelectual' celebrity, one of the
> great
> >european intellectuals. What is this list for? Let me tell you:
> celebrating
> >his intellectual celebrity. We are just 'reproducing' it.=20
> >
> >The rationale behind your distinction is: "well, for the celebrities you
> >may have a morbid interest for their private life, but for the serious
> >guys, well, that's a taboo! Just matters what they wrote and produced".
> I'm
> >sorry, but :
> >
> >1=BA I cannot draw a boundary between the Bourdieu 'intelectual' and=
>  Bourdieu
> >'man': I think that Jen Webb has made it clear - my intellectual
> admiration
> >for Bourdieu's work means that I am emotionally tied to him. Until now
> (i'm
> >only 22), Bourdieu has been the sociologist and intellectual that
> >contributed more for my intellectual formation - so if he dies, I die a
> >little bit with him. If you know a 'magic' solution to separate the
> >'intellectual' admiration from the 'emotional' admiration, please tell
> me.
> >
> >2=BA  you cannot draw a boundary between an author's private life and an
> >author's work. Why is the family life of the artists and intellectuals
> >(more divorces, less children) much more unstructured than the family
> life
> >of the university professors (more children, lesse divorce - as Bourdieu
> as
> >shown us in 'Homo Academicus', english translation, p.36-37)? Why did
> >Anthony Giddens wrote 'Modernity and Self-Identity' after three years in
> >psychological therapy due to his second divorce? Why are the biographies
> of
> >Louis Althusser (in his case, auto-biography) and Michel Foucault so
> >important? Why are some of the most brilliant thinkers of our century
> >passed long moments of their lives in psychiatric asylums (Althusser,
> >Foucault, but also Weber, for example) or died using so radical methods
> >(Poulantzas or Deleuze, who commited suicide')? Are this uninteresting
> >questions? I think they are astonishingly revealing.
> >
> >Returning to Bourdieu - this is obviously a speculation, but: can't a
> >possible (serious) illness of Bourdieu - or simply his ageing process -
> be
> >related to the turning of his strategy as an intellectual, more engaged
> and
> >with more public and medicatic visibility than he enjoied during his past
> >professional career? Or that is just the 'logical' product of his
> 'purely'
> >intellectual trajectory, from the margins to the center of the field
> >(position that he obviously denies - the Swartz book has one or two
> >references on this point, Bourdieu seeing himself as an outsider...)?=20
> >
> >This questions are sociological, not the result of gossiping or 'morbid
> >curiosity'. If they sometimes overlap, that is probably because in every
> >meddler is a potential sociologist.=20
> >
> >Yours,
> >
> >Hugo Mendes
> >[ISCTE/Lisbon]
> >**********************************************************************
> >Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >
> >
>
>
> Hugo is right AND PUTS VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
> to reflect in spite of his young age. I agree to his points and I have to=
>  add
> that sometimes some ilnesses are made out of the intellectual condition
> of=
>  their
> subjects especially if they happen to be intellectuals. Cancers and=
>  circulatory
> problems are related to this intellectual condition. If that is the case
> with B.=20
> then the point of Hugo gains further importance and we all have to think=
>  again
> once more on the role that certain intellectuals have played or are still
> playing
> to our post-modernity. I believe that the intellectual work of a person
> is=
>  the=20
> reflection of his/her everyday life or personal life-style.
>
> Nikos
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

HTML VERSION:

OK Hugo, I agree with you. La distance et la meconnaissance  -Bourdieu dixit- sont tres liees a la reconnaissance. Dond je ne pourrais jamais faire une critique moralisante a propos d'une telle curiosite a propos d'une dimension aussi importante de la biographie ou la trajectoire vitale d'un des protagonistes le plus important du champ intellectuel et politique de la France contemporaine.

Bes wishes. Emilio

-----Mensaje original-----
De:     bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [SMTP:bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]
Enviado el:     Miércoles 19 de Mayo de 1999 06:41
Para:   bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Asunto: Re: The content and the context

At 08:13 PM 5/18/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Oh, please, let's end with this 'celebrity' and 'morbid curiosity' talk.
>What do you mean by a 'celebrity'? Of course he's not a 'Hollywood'
>celebrity, but of course he's an 'intelectual' celebrity, one of the great
>european intellectuals. What is this list for? Let me tell you: celebrating
>his intellectual celebrity. We are just 'reproducing' it.=20
>
>The rationale behind your distinction is: "well, for the celebrities you
>may have a morbid interest for their private life, but for the serious
>guys, well, that's a taboo! Just matters what they wrote and produced". I'm
>sorry, but :
>
>1=BA I cannot draw a boundary between the Bourdieu 'intelectual' and=
 Bourdieu
>'man': I think that Jen Webb has made it clear - my intellectual admiration
>for Bourdieu's work means that I am emotionally tied to him. Until now (i'm
>only 22), Bourdieu has been the sociologist and intellectual that
>contributed more for my intellectual formation - so if he dies, I die a
>little bit with him. If you know a 'magic' solution to separate the
>'intellectual' admiration from the 'emotional' admiration, please tell me.
>
>2=BA  you cannot draw a boundary between an author's private life and an
>author's work. Why is the family life of the artists and intellectuals
>(more divorces, less children) much more unstructured than the family life
>of the university professors (more children, lesse divorce - as Bourdieu as
>shown us in 'Homo Academicus', english translation, p.36-37)? Why did
>Anthony Giddens wrote 'Modernity and Self-Identity' after three years in
>psychological therapy due to his second divorce? Why are the biographies of
>Louis Althusser (in his case, auto-biography) and Michel Foucault so
>important? Why are some of the most brilliant thinkers of our century
>passed long moments of their lives in psychiatric asylums (Althusser,
>Foucault, but also Weber, for example) or died using so radical methods
>(Poulantzas or Deleuze, who commited suicide')? Are this uninteresting
>questions? I think they are astonishingly revealing.
>
>Returning to Bourdieu - this is obviously a speculation, but: can't a
>possible (serious) illness of Bourdieu - or simply his ageing process - be
>related to the turning of his strategy as an intellectual, more engaged and
>with more public and medicatic visibility than he enjoied during his past
>professional career? Or that is just the 'logical' product of his 'purely'
>intellectual trajectory, from the margins to the center of the field
>(position that he obviously denies - the Swartz book has one or two
>references on this point, Bourdieu seeing himself as an outsider...)?=20
>
>This questions are sociological, not the result of gossiping or 'morbid
>curiosity'. If they sometimes overlap, that is probably because in every
>meddler is a potential sociologist.=20
>
>Yours,
>
>Hugo Mendes
>[ISCTE/Lisbon]
>**********************************************************************
>Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>
>




Hugo is right AND PUTS VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
to reflect in spite of his young age. I agree to his points and I have to=
 add
that sometimes some ilnesses are made out of the intellectual condition of=
 their
subjects especially if they happen to be intellectuals. Cancers and=
 circulatory
problems are related to this intellectual condition. If that is the case
with B.=20
then the point of Hugo gains further importance and we all have to think=
 again
once more on the role that certain intellectuals have played or are still
playing
to our post-modernity. I believe that the intellectual work of a person is=
 the=20
reflection of his/her everyday life or personal life-style.

Nikos




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