Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 12:28:07 +1000 From: Shaun Rawolle <s201330-AT-student.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: Intellectual violence Hi all, I know that I interrupt halfway through a conversation, so please forgive my indiscretion. As someone currently interrested in the genealogy of concepts that have some social epistemology in the french history of science -- especially those of Bachelard and Canguilhem -- it constantly strikes me as being an odd assumption that the distinctive contributions of Bourdieu, Foucault, Deleuze, etc.. do not have a sense of continuity in their underlying doxic assumptions. By this I simply mean that a fetish, if you like, revolving about the formations of societal normalisation, appear to have a continued influence in their works. Tracing a rather obvious path from the comments of Canguilhem in the Normal and the Pathological, I see a distinctive theoretical substratum in his continued repititions on the logical and societal use of normalization (and standardisation) in conceptual understandings within science. ... And the warning about the uncritical acceptance of common sense binaries in the works of Bachelard appears another link with Bourdieu (he states as much in the introduction to Practical Reason), Foucault and Deleuze. Maybe I push this too far, but as a theoretical and rhetorical manoeuvre in building these bridges between theoretical series, why should we swallow the distinctive and autonomizing academic strategies of B, D and F as anything other than strategies aimed to carve a niche in French academic space? At 13:52 07/02/00 -0000, you wrote: >>I'm personally all for using Foucault and Bourdieu as you say. But I'm >quite >>puzzled by the final claim "You can't mix and match in these matters." Of >>course this means "you shouldn't" -- because there is no doubt that one can >>(if one _could_ not, there would be no reason to forbid it like this). I >can >>see two reasons one shouldn't: (1) It will lead to poor results (2) It will >>lead to unfaithful interpretations of the figures involved (i.e. Kuhn, >>Foucault, and Bourdieu). As for (1), I don't think you can just claim this >>at the outset. I would argue on the contrary that interesting views almost >>always combine resources from multiple thinkers. And as for (2), I'm not >>even sure that that's right -- sometimes understanding some figure is best >>furthered by intensive comparison with another. > >My argument instead would be this: > >(3) In so far as theories (sociological, philosophical) must have a degree >of internal consistency and furthermore define themselves in opposition to >other theories in the same area, it is inconsistent to bolt together >conceptions from different (and inevitably mutually excluding) theories. >Bourdieu, in particular, is very careful to distinguish his own position >from others', even when as in the case with Foucault there appear to be a >number of points in common. >(4) If you take X, Y, and Z concepts from A, B, and C theories and then put >them together, you thereby make a new theory. >(5) Theoretical concepts are defined/take on meaning partly in relation to >each other. Although I >don't think we necessarily need to treat a sociological theory as a >monolithic block, this consideration does mean that mixing and matching >generally tends to produce not a casserole but a dog's dinner (or a dog's >breakfast or however you like your mixed metaphors cooked). > >- Simon > > > > > > >********************************************************************** >Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > > ____________________________ Shaun Rawolle Doctoral Candidate Graduate School of Education Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences The University of Queensland Phone: 07 3365 6234 ********************************************************************** 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