Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:03:32 -0400
From: Yves Gingras <gingras.yves-AT-uqam.ca>
Subject: Re: Bourdieu the "Top Guy"


>Hugo Mendes wrote:
>
>>
>>         I finish with a question: why can't we find in "Les Actes de la
>>Recherche"
>> a single article (if my memory doesn't betray me)disagreeing with Bourdieu?
>> Why everybody writing there reproduces its concepts of field, habitus,
>> capital? Why can't we, like in other journals, find perspectives from
>> ethnomethodology, interaccionism, systems theory, neo-funcionalism, social
>> constructivism, etc., etc.?
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Hugo Mendes
>>
>> *****
>
>Let me guess. Maybe because Bourdieu is the director (and founder) or
>something of
>that journal?
>
>Kindest,
>Guenter Trendler

Hello,

I think the answer to the question raised by Hugo Mendes must take into
account the very different structure of the French field in social sciences
compared to the anglo-saxon field. In the latter we are used to see
"peer-reviewed journals
managed by scientific communities and open to a variey of intellectual
influence; though of course the spectrum is limited and varies from journal
to journal. In anay case the idea of double blind reviewing by members of
the discipline chosen in different countries is very different from the
=46rench tradition with its 'editorial board' who read the papers themselves
and give to their "home" or "school" journal a much more limited line of
thought. They thus tend to construct thematic issues and command papers in
advance to specific authors often chosen through the mecanism of "elective
affinity". This of course favors in depth analysis of a specific theme,
question or method but is far from the usual disciplinary journals which
dominate the anglo-saxon field. There are of course exceptions, but I think
this broad brush go a long way to understand the dynamic of journal
creation and opposition. This is also true of book collection. Bourdieu had
for a very long time his famous collection at Minuit called "Le sens
commun". Boudon has his own collection at Presses universitaires de France
and publish only "boudoniens".One could also cite Alain Caillé and his
group (anti-bourdieusien) who run the journal MAUSS (mouvement
anti-utilitariste en sciences sociales) and others. Of course Revue
fran=E7aise de sociologie is in-between though more on the Boudon side of
things.One can discuss if the French way is good or bad, but the point here
was simply to suggest that the way of doing things in French social science
must be taken into acount in your discussions of Bourdieu.

In short let us be reflexive in the analysis of a national field: Bourdieu
is part of the French field and act accordingly. One could also analyse
along these lines the discussion about the absence of citations to
"colleagues" in works like Foucault, Boudon, Derrida etc all "top" French
thinkers who are trained to think for themselves and who from their 'chair'
are above the others and not with them as we tend to do in our annual
congresses where we can discuss with our "top" colleagues from across the
country or even from many countries.
Can you imagine a French congress of sociology in Paris?



Yves Gingras










Département d'histoire et
Centre interuniversitaire
de recherche sur la science
et la technologie (CIRST)
UQAM
C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville
Montréal, Québec
Canada, H3C 3P8
http://www.ost.qc.ca/


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