From: "Simon Beesley" <simonb-AT-beesleys.freeserve.co.uk> Subject: Re: Homology Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:17:36 -0000 John, Sorry to bang on. I just want to get clear about the nature of the Bourdieu's homologies -- not about whether they do obtain, neatly or otherwise, but about what they are. Looking at the other messages in this thread, it seems to me there are two senses of homology: 1. A strict one-to-one mapping between different fields (which you say in your thesis does not apply) a ---> a' b ---> b' c ---> c' 2. A mapping in which the same relations are preserved: a>b>c ---> a'>b'>c' The first is uncontentious and not surprising, though it implies that the two fields are not completely autonomous. The second is much more difficult to demonstrate, especially when the second set of terms (a', b', c') refers to position-takings rather than degrees of capital. And even if one could show that the homology held, this would be only be for certain fields, while in others at best you could show a kind of inverse homology; e.g. possibly an inverse homology holds between the same agents in the social field (classified in class terms) and in the field of sport. Regards Simon ********************************************************************** Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005