From: "Simon Beesley" <simonb-AT-beesleys.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Robbins book--review
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 08:33:06 +0100


Kent,

> I find this contrite will to ignorance about the "the French field"
> particularly in regards to Derrida questionable and disturbing.  Bourdieu
> states in several places that to understand his work one must understand his
> position and lineage.  If you are interested in applying his conceptions it
> might be of use to understand his relation to structuralism and why he left
> it's dogmatism  and the similarity in this re-formulation of structure that
> is so important in the work of Derrida. As was stated in a previous post B.
> is concern with 20th century literature, ideology, culture and globalization
> he "surpassed"(under erasure) Marx.    I think a similar homology can be
> drawn between Bourdieu's movement from levi-straus's classic scientism and
> Derrida's post-structuralism (may I suggest you read Derrida's critique of
> Levi-Straus in Of Gramatology). This of course throws the question of
> language up in the air which both Derrida and Bourdieu do.  Disparaging
> remarks or attempts to reintrepret it to common languag B. language, without
>having understood its historical roots and to cavalierly defend this
> ignorance is rather astounding.


A. I have read Of Grammatology and neither reject Derrida's critique of
Levi-Strauss wholeheartedly nor go along with it. Or rather, as a faithful
follower of the great literary critic and anti-philosopher, F.R. Leavis, I
reject the whole shebang -- actually, make that contemporary academic thought in
general (with the partial exception of Bourdieu). The most pressing concern, I
believe, is what Raymond Tallis has called the "need to explain the pandemic of
lunacy that swept through the Humanities in the second half of the Twentieth
Century when Theorrhoea carried all before it."

B. "Bourdieu states in several places that to understand his work one must
understand his position and lineage". Well, he would do, wouldn't he? I think I
already have a fairly good understanding of his position and his lineage --
partly thanks to his own concepts and Jacyno's critique. I suppose you are
implying that I couldn't really have this understanding since if I did I
wouldn't be so presumptious as to call some aspects of his theoretical practice
into question.

C. "Disparaging remarks or attempts to reinterpret it to common language ..."
Who said anything about common language?

Your position puzzles me greatly. On the one hand, you have often on this list
shown that one can take a genuinely critical stance towards Bourdieu without
having to feel one is being disparaging or dismissive. On the other, every now
and then your idolatrous side comes to the fore and you rush Rottweiler-like to
defend your master against what you imagine are unthinking and crude sleights.
Down boy! I am not interested in disparaging Bourdieu for the sake of
disparagement. I hope I have put forward arguments -- or at least some solid
considerations -- for the points I am trying to make. Why not address these?

>I find this contrite will to ignorance about the "the French field"
>particularly in regards to Derrida questionable and disturbing.

Where do you detect contrition? I am not the least bit contrite about ignorance
of the French field (and may not be all that ignorant about it either). My point
was that parochial disputes and factionalism within the French field are
generally of little value if you want to take a critical approach to Bourdieu's
ideas. See Jacyno's highly pertinent comments on the 'tout Paris' syndrome.


Regards
Simon






















**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu