Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:34:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: George Free <aw570-AT-freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Bourdieu and Reformism


On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Houston Wood wrote:

> George Free wrote: "Sociology itself can be viewed in many ways as a
> critique of philosophy. Whereas philosophers have tended to analyze thought
> as ultimately resting on universal, logical forms, sociologists (since
> Durkheim) have sought to show how forms of thought are based in--or are
> expressions of--social relations."
> --I think this is so, too, so what I am asking is: Why do we need more
> critiques of philosophy?Isn't that just more philosophy? B's work also
> seems to be a critique of previously existing sociologies--but why do we
> need them? To create a "better sociology"? Whose interests are served by
> the existence of a better sociology?

A critique of philosophy, which is truly effective, could aid our 
understanding of thought and of ourselves. This is why we need a better 
sociology too: so that we can understand the world and our place in it 
better. 

Like all rational endeavors, sociology ultimately serves a universal 
interest and those who are the bearers of universality.

I think we are in dire need of better sociology. The existing , commonly 
found sociology in the universities is in a sorry state, in my opinion. 
Bourdieu's work represents substantial progress over what is out there, I 
believe.

> 
> --Maybe this is what is bothering me: B's "reflexive sociology" seems
> fundamentally reformist but I am not much interested in simply changing the
> faces of the experts who rule the field of power. I am seeking ways to
> shatter the dynamics of this field, to create possibilities of other
> configurations. 
> 

I think I sympathize with your concerns, but I believe it is utopian to 
suggest that there could be no experts in a modern society. The issue for 
me is: do the "experts" serve the interest of humanity (according to the 
classical goal of reason) or are they merely self-serving. Bourdieu's 
sociology of intellectuals is designed to help intellectuals clarify 
their interested involvement in the world, and thus to control it in line 
with their professed ambitions.

> 
> 	Am I correct, then, to understand that B is fundamentally interested in
> reform and not radical transformations of modernity?  He wants to save
> sociology, correct it, not create a new one in which specialized fields
> like sociology no longer occupy prominent places as a dominated fraction
> within the dominant field?
> 	 If so, I am not condemning Bourdieu, just realizing that given my
> interests I should carry my search on, elsewhere, to associate with
> cultural workers committed to seeking fundamental social change.
> 

You could put it this way, but you risk falling into the opposite danger 
of irrationalism. What is needed at the present time is support and 
strength of the scientific interests in our society. The current 
political leaders have done much to undermine it.

I hope these brief comments are clear.

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