From: "kent strock" <sigmund5-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Bourdieu and Objectivity Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 23:33:08 PDT simon says" does a scientific habitus exist anywhere in the world" this is like a koan...if it does exist are you insinuating its part of nature? If not then well all of science is not part of the world and B. is giving a thorough analysis of it THROUGH language. Which is something B. as a post-structuralist you forget. the problem of language...I hope you are not proposing the belief in the 19th century belief in the transparency of language that needs to be rid of rhetoric that I sense in your last several posts. kent >From: Simon Beesley <simonb-AT-beesleys.freeserve.co.uk> >Reply-To: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >To: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Subject: Re: Bourdieu and Objectivity >Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:36:28 +0100 > >Steve, > >Sorry, I can't leave this alone. My non-dispositional mind is reeling! A >scientific habitus. A set of dispositions to generate sociological truths. >Transmitting and producing such a set of dispositions. Help me out, please. >Make >some sense of these ideas for me. > >Does a scientific habitus exist somewhere in the world? Are scientists >already >embedded in scientific habitus? Did a set of dispositions enable (that >should be >"cause") Albert Einstein to arrive at the theory of relativity? Or, for >that >matter, guide Max Weber's thought ? Does PB the father of the dispositional >theory of sociological method embody in his person the original set of >dispositions? How do the dispositions interact with the written (conscious) >production of scientific reasoning and evidence by which scientists >normally >accompany and support their findings? Does the set of dispositions include >a >sub-set for the production of scientific papers? Where can I get hold of >this >set of dispositions? I want to sign up for it now. > >Is it a bit like eugenics or Pavlovian conditioning or putting a pigeon in >a >Skinner box? > >"And I can only agree with Rogers Brubaker's analysis according to which >what I >aim to produce and transmit above all is a scientific habitus, a system of >dispositions necessary to the constitution of the craft of sociologist in >its >universality." > >Does this mean that only Bourdieusian sociology can have universality? Is >Bourdieusian dispositional sociology the true and only path? What will >happen to >all the other sociologists? Can they be retrained? Can their old set of >dispositions be removed and replaced? > >Isn't the concept of habitus intimately related to that of a field? If so, >could >we then talk of a scientific field which somehow dispenses with all the >other >characteristics of fields -- illusio, misrecognition, nomos, relationally >determined distinctions, capital, etc.-- and achieves absolute >universality? >Will we still be able to distinguish between opus operatum and opus >operandi? > >And so, and so forth ... > >Regards >Simon > > > > > > > > > >********************************************************************** >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 E-mail from MSN Hotmail 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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005