From: "kent strock" <sigmund5-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bourdieu, Subjects, and Althusser
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:08:42 PST



Gianpaolo wrote:


  Obviously there are differences, but I have often thought
>you could read Bourdieu as an account of the interpellation of the class
>subject.  Do you think it is worth the symbolic violence to Bourdieu to do
>so?

To not address the symbolic question directly I would just ask why B. or or 
anyone be read as another theorists?  Can one be reduced to the other?  what 
would be gained? Turn him into a Marxist? I think it would also be a 
disservice in that class is only one variable among many create habitus and 
schemes of perception. I think other problems and concepts that B. brings to 
the table would be lost.  In reading one against another nathan raised a 
good point about interpellation being a kind of end point for Althusser.  
Which raises the issue of time which Bourdieu is rather concerned with, 
theoretically in terms of scienctific practice but time of/in practice.
kent



>
>Gianpaolo Baiocchi
>Department of Sociology
>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
>
>
>On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, kent strock wrote:
>
> >
> > Nathan,
> > As one of the main protagonists in this debate about appropriateness, I
> > think your post has been one of the most "appropriate" and thought 
>provoking
> > in a long time and am sorry if you felt trepidation in posting. "I" 
>think
> > your posting was exactly the type that can further thoughts on Bourdieu 
>and
> > benefit us all and the type I was trying to formulate theoretically and
> > textually. Contary to what S Pines says in his attack on my post(not 
>postS
> > which may lead to some misunderstandings) which focused on thoughts on
> > reading Bourdieu and practicing Bourdieu.  While I think his response 
>lacked
> > any subtlety of reading or decorum, I do agree with him on several 
>points
> > and think we agree more than he thinks. However, I will respond to that
> > problem  and his attacks later.
> >      You raise questions, having read enough Bourdieu to provoke 
>questions
> > and thoughts, which I think in agreeing with S. Pines shows that one 
>must
> > not have read everything or that too much reading can stultify a 
>sciencific
> > habitus that Bourdieu want to cultivate both at a theoretical level AND 
>a
> > TEXTUAL level.  In raising these questions you leave traces of thought 
>and
> > production and practices a form of reading that i think is the product 
>of
> > scientific habitus that Bourdiue wishes to promote. Your meditations 
>helps
> > us all do that, particularly in discussing Althusser.
> >    I think you draw intersting and provacative comparisions and 
>distinctions
> > between the two.  Bourdieu at times or much of the time doesn't always 
>pay
> > intellectual debts. Which I think does cause some problems in how he is 
>read
> > and reacted too, but I think it also has a political agenda attached to 
>it.
> > He wants to and us to resist reducing his thought, our thought, concepts 
>and
> > texts, to the handed down, naturalized schemes of perception of the 
>dominant
> > scientific habitus produced by the field. He sees real political stakes
> > involved in "fighting" spontaneous sociology and a too close of an 
>alliance
> > with a particular thinker and concepts does reify particular concepts or
> > types/forms of reading(which again drawing on the Nietzsche metaphor of 
>the
> > over-used coin which has had the detail and subtlety of the image erased 
>-it
> > maintains a symoblic value) produced by schemes of perception which 
>serve
> > the capitalist logic of production of bibliophia which has permeated
> > American academia.  Put another way he does ask, thru his formulations 
>of
> > concepts and TEXTUAL practices, for estrangement and an alienation from
> > those concepts which we use off-handedly.  I see this lack of biblophia 
>or
> > paying of certain debts to say to Althuser or particularly Merlou-Ponty 
>as a
> > practice by which he discourages us to invoke their authority, but more
> > importantly not rely on the stultified concepts that inevitably history 
>has
> > forced upon them.
> >     What I find most useful and exciting in Bordieu, and secondary to 
>his
> > constellation of concepts that comprise a "machine", with its attending
> > concepts of habitus etc.,  for thinking the social is this critique of
> > spontaneous sociology and the representation of the world it produces.
> > Perhaps he can be accused of a naive nominalism, but he does state in
> > Reflexive Sociology that perhaps changing representations of the world 
>can
> > change the world.  Or maybe as we PRACTICE academic production within 
>this
> > context, it is our role and only political tool at our disposal.
> >    As for your question about various concepts that can be used such
> > subject, agent and actor, I would guess that he doesn't use subject as 
>much
> > as the other terms, if he uses it much at all.  I would say in one of 
>his
> > basic "projects" is to get away from the opposition between 
>subject/object
> > and all that goes along with that discourse and his insistance that 
>academic
> > discourse follows the Fuzzy logic of all other forms of practice and his
> > movement from agent to actor etc reflects  this and resists the 
>tendencies
> > of theoretical reason which the academic, tends toward the axiomatic and
> > reductive.  To make a suggestion some of these basics including the 
>value of
> > relationality will help in using Bourdieu. To make another suggestion is 
>to
> > approach the question from phenomenological perspective. how are these
> > schemes of perceptions used to orient the agent thru practices and 
>objects
> > in creation of the/a world of or within experience.
> > thanks,
> > kent
> >
> > >From: "Nathaniel I. Crdova" <cordova-AT-wam.umd.edu>
> > >Reply-To: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > >To: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > >Subject: Bourdieu, Subjects, and Althusser
> > >Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:32:50 -0500
> > >
> > >Folks:
> > >
> > >     Given the recent discussions in this list about appropriateness of
> > >inquiries I start this post with some trepidation. Consequently, I 
>offer
> > >the
> > >following caveat:  I am just starting in my understanding of Bourdieu. 
>I
> > >have done some reading of his work (Language and S. P., Logic of 
>Practice,
> > >and other little bits I have found, interview with Eagleton, a piece on
> > >habitus and structure, etc.) but truly have read more about him, than 
>work
> > >directly by him, and what I have read by him is not quite settled yet,
> > >which
> > >I consider a good thing.  So, my inquiries here are not for an easy 
>out,
> > >but
> > >rather as a means of extending my understanding through conversation 
>with
> > >others engaged in the same process.
> > >
> > >     I know last year a brief conversation ensued about Bourdieu and
> > >subjects, agents, and actors. I have read the archives, but remain a 
>bit
> > >confused. I am trying to discern how Bourdieu sees this process of the
> > >constitution of subjects (subjectivities). I believe it was in the 
>Logic of
> > >Practice that Bourdieu mentions that individuals need not always act as
> > >subjects, that is from the position of subjects. I know he makes a
> > >distinction between agent and actor, with agent being less "free" to 
>choose
> > >self-reflexively his/her actions. What I am truly interested in is 
>whether
> > >Bourdieu buys the ideological interpellation process posited by 
>Althusser,
> > >and to what extent. While Althusser is extremely deterministic in his
> > >account, I see Bourdieu as wanting to move away from such an account.
> > >
> > >Althusser also does not theorize much or well enough for me, what 
>happens
> > >after an interpellation has failed. For him the process is all or none, 
>and
> > >misses something rich there. Part of my interest is seeing whether 
>Bourdieu
> > >picks up after Althusser here. My understanding is that Bourdieu sees a
> > >field not just as static structure but as a struggle for
> > >positions/positioning. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that there 
>will
> > >be a process of subjectification, that is of constituting subject 
>positions
> > >for others to adopt. But somewhere else I read that positions within a
> > >field
> > >(for B.) are determined by the allocation of capital to actors. To what
> > >extent can this allocation process be seen as an interpellative or
> > >constitutive process imbuing the position with certain forms of capital
> > >that
> > >create dispositions for such "subjects/agents/actors?"  At this point
> > >subjects/agents/actors? are located in the field in particular ways 
>bound
> > >to
> > >act in accordance with a variety of dispositions but not necessarily
> > >determined by those? Are these subjects/agents/actors also constantly 
>under
> > >interpellation or for B. I gather, positioning practices?
> > >
> > >A next set of questions for me revolve around the notion of whether
> > >positions should be looked at as identities. Or is it "postures" 
>(having
> > >more of an effect on the process of positioning in the field) that are
> > >identities? Has anybody in the list commented on Stuart Hall's view of
> > >identities as the suture point of ideological discourses and Bourdieu's
> > >positions or "postures?" While I am clear on how the ideological 
>discourse
> > >approach theorizes the constant shedding and uptake of identities, I am
> > >uncertain as to how Bourdieu theorizes this except for the possibility 
>of
> > >the production and exchange of forms of capital.
> > >
> > >On pages 216-221 of Robert Paul Resch's "Althusser and the Renewal of
> > >Marxist Social Theory" (Univ. of California Press, 1992)  Resch quotes
> > >Bourdieu by stating that for B. individuals interpellated as subjects 
>are
> > >not so much determined by a set of rules as endowed with a social sense
> > >(here he moves to Bourdieu --> "cultivated dispositions, inscribed in 
>the
> > >body schema and the schemas of thought, which enables each agent to
> > >engender
> > >all the practices consistent with the logic of challenge and riposte, 
>and
> > >only such practices, by means of countless inventions, which the
> > >stereotyped
> > >unfolding of ritual would in no way demand" (Bourdieu 1977, 15). This 
>seems
> > >to jive with my understanding of more flexibility for subjects, but I 
>still
> > >have the questions about how these subjects come to be and whither the
> > >distinctions between subject, agent, and actor.
> > >
> > >Well, enough here, I am just going on, but I would appreciate any 
>responses
> > >to help make this stuff a bit clearer and to see if others are seeing 
>it
> > >the
> > >way I am. Thanks for listening, and have a great day all.
> > >
> > >NC
> > >cordova-AT-wam.umd.edu
> > >
> > >**********************************************************************
> > >Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > >Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > >Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> > **********************************************************************
> > Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >
>
>**********************************************************************
>Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu