File spoon-archives/bourdieu.archive/bourdieu_2000/bourdieu.0001, message 81


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005