Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 08:24:31 +0100
Subject: Re: Leibnitz



Dear Simon Beesley

I am not a member of this list in order to teach. In fact, I believe that I
have learned many things from this list. Enquiries and comments made to this
list may sometimes go unanswered because there is not a formal teaching
relationship (and its obligations) between the members of this list.

In my earlier mailing I commented on what I thought was a brutal and
destructive way for someone who has knowledge to deal with someone who does
not.

John Evans

----------
>From: Simon Beesley <simonb-AT-beesleys.freeserve.co.uk>
>To: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: Leibnitz
>Date: Mon, May 14, 2001, 6:17 am
>> Bravo! Simon - you should be proud.
>
> Why? I am not an academic and am not in the business of nurturing young minds.
> That's your job -- though I am not sure that the person to whom my brutal
> epithets were directed would not prefer my brutality to your patronising tone.
>
> What is this? Academic Pecksniffs tut-tutting at the language one uses?
> I would argue that my approach is more faithful to the spirit of
> Bourdieu's thought -- and if it's not, I still can't find it in me to be the
> least bit contrite.
>
>> Thanks for that John Evans - I think that we are all puzzling with the
>> relation between the critical and the merely disciplinary energies of theory
>> in general and Bourdieu in particular. The descriptive rules we might derive
>> from his own practice - he is louder and angrier in general with more
>> powerful groups than with less powerful - are cheerily under-theorised: they
>> even look happily sentimental; but they do sign an inchoate relation to the
>> inchoacies of the world. That is, there's something of beautiful and blind
>> allegiance behind what can't be a fully scientific dialectical engagement.
>
>
> "The merely disciplinary energies of theory"? This is going straight to the
top
> of my book of academic euphemisms, to describe it euphemistically, along with
> "cheerily under-theorised" and "fully scientific dialectical engagement" --
> terms which it would be polite to describe as jargon. As for the idea that we
> might derive descriptive  rules for our own practice from Bourdieu's practice
> ... I cannot think of anything more craven and, again, more antithetical to
the
> spirit and the letter of Bourdieu's thought and practice.
>
> Regards
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> 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