Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:11:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Carolyn Betensky <betensky-AT-gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Subject: Re: Moving on.... Bill, I'm in agreement with you. I do think Bourdieu undertheorizes the concept himself, as you suggest, but that doesn't mean it isn't powerful or valid. Perhaps we ourselves might take it further? Got to go -- more anon. Carolyn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Bill Hord wrote: > In a recent post Carolyn Betensky wrote: > > > > Let me toss another topic on the table: how do you all feel about the > > > hysteresis effect as an explanatory principle? I don't recall seeing > > > much over the course of the habitus debate (I joined this list over the > > > summer -- perhaps you've discussed this before?) concerning the role of > > > hysteresis. Bourdieu writes of it in Outline of a Theory of Practice and > > > in the Logic of Practice (elsewhere, too, I believe, though I can't > > > remember where): it's one of the ways he explains disruptions and > > > mutations in social reproduction. The hysteresis effect occurs when the > > > habitus keeps running but stops working -- that is, when it stops > > > producing its habitual, taken-for-granted effects but continues to do its > > > usual thing. As I understand it, this gap between the habitus's > > > "efforts" and the habitus's effects opens up when the larger context > > > within which the habitus operates shifts in some way the habitus hasn't > > > had to deal with before. The habitus *isn't* all-powerful in some > > > mysterious way -- things *do* happen that take it by surprise and force it > > > to shove over, if only for a moment. Of course, each such challenge > > > ultimately strengthens the habitus as it offers new opportunities to > > > spin recuperative strategies, new plays for the habitus portfolio. > > To which Karl Maton responded: > > > My mental picture of it is the movement of an ant's legs after it's died ... it keeps > > moving, though the reasons for doing so have disappeared. I like the idea and it is > > useful for thinking about. As an addition to the concept of habitus, though, it > > smells rahter strongly of ad hoccery. > > Here's my question: > > Why 'ad hoccery'? Shouldn't we view habitus as an adaptation? Aren't > adaptations (admittedly ad hoc in another sense) only temporary and > always subject to revision? (Bourdieu's acknowledgment of the > pragmatists helps us understand this point.) Thus, isn't habitus always > 'subject to revision' (pun intended)? > > If we agree so far, then doesn't it follow that the notion of hysteresis > is inseparable from that of habitus? (And possibly under-theorized by > Bourdieu?) > > Bill Hord > ********************************************************************** > Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > ********************************************************************** 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