Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:52:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Leibniz


> > And what's wrong with people looking for citations, when all too
> > frequently posts are made in such general terms that if one IS
> > interested in learning something one IS hard-pressed to determine the
> > source ....
>
>
>What's wrong is that the sources are not hard to find anyway

I beg to disagree.  The generalities I've observed frequently make it 
impossible to find sources.  Individuals frequently do not even 
bother to cite the name of the text ... they offer their febrile, 
half-formed, half-baked conclusions as "facts" about Bourdieu and 
others ...

>and one knows very
>well that this obsessive citation-mongering is just a substitute for real work
>and thought; i.e. part of the apparatus and paraphernalia of bogus 
>scholarship.

What constitutes "real work and thought"?  It frequently appears to 
me from your posts that you apparently think you own the monopoly ...

>This is homo academicus at his most comical and unlovely worst, revealing
>himself to be exactly as Bourdieu portrays him: preening, self-basting,
>self-regarding, puffed up and swollen with excessive amour propre, ludicrously
>quick to drop the mask of rationality when he feels his sense of dignity and
>authority are challenged.

And your point would be?

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