Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:26:18 +0100
From: Karl Maton <karl.maton-AT-dtn.ntl.com>
Subject: Re: Asimov




> 
>         Sorry for the delay in responding, lots going on here. Well, lists
> are truly intriguing, the one thing I thought would be ignored gets picked
> up, while nothing else did! Well then, to Asimov. Upon reading the posts
> regarding the nature of Habitus and the ways or not to operationalize, to
> trace (or the possibility to trace) someone's habitus, whether habitus has
> bones we can see (empirically discern it), whether we can use statistical
> means to point to it, and whether individuals are key to it or not, I
> thought that it sounded like the science of psychohistory that Asimov
> provides in his Foundation series.

Just a quick point ... it's not whether we can see / empirically discern
the habitus.  We cannot.  It is whether we can identify the regularities
among empirical practices that would illustrate the realisations of a
habitus.  The habitus is real but not empirical.  


With best wishes,

Karl 

Karl Maton
School of Education, University of Cambridge

Correspondence address:
108 Avenue Road Extension, Leicester LE2 3EH
Tel: 0116 220 1066
Email: karl.maton-AT-dtn.ntl.com

I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the heart’s affections and
the truth of the imagination
Keats
**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu