From: rdumain-AT-igc.org
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:52:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Wacquant on boxing


This interchange is a textbook case of what happens in the American academy when it imports French ideas, that is, bends those ideas, whatever their original worth, toward extremely conservativer and intellectually closed ends.  The compulsory misconstrual of what other people have to say is a characteristic constraint of the idiotic social type known as homo academicus.  Not to perpetuate a useless argument, but just to clarify:

(1) I accept the characterizations of Wacquant's research and whatever is known of his ideas and motives.  Hence, I have no vested interest in continuing to assume the worst in the case of Wacquant without further evidence.  Hence to continue to make an issue of my lack of familiariy with Wacquant is a non-issue.

(2) The questioning of his or any of your motivations is a perfectly legitimate and natural intellectual pursuit.  Your responses evenince the most technocratic mentality possible: Wacqaunt is a celebrated sociologist; this is what is in his book; who are you to question?  But I cannot and will not dispute the scholarly value of his work nor the legitimacy of his stature as a sociologist.  Though I am interested in learning the what and the how, the remaining and ultimate question is the why?  Why would one engage this sort of activity, and why do it with a specialized scientific audience in mind, as opposed to say, the general public?  I have no basis for impugning questionable motives to Wacwaunt specifically, but why is it wrong to pose the question and demand an answer?  Your responses in blindly protecting your turf, willfully misrepresenting my position, and engaging in intellectual censorship in attempting to delegitimate my query speaks volumes about your motives, who !
!
and what you are.

(3) Hence, pending further information, I will suspend judgement about  Wacquant's interest in boxing.  However, I will not suspend judgement about the motives behind your defensive responses.  The 20th century was the centurey of fascism: this century is starting out even worse: I leave the question on the table: why are intellectuals, who are purportedly interested in the life of the mind, are as predisposed towards fascistic impulses are unleashed in their work, as any other segment of the population is predisposed in its own sphere?  I detect an underlying moral malaise in the repsonses to my query, and while I will have to accept the exoneration of Wacquant for the time being, I must assume your own ideollogical and moral bankruptcy until proven otherwise.



bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu wrote:
> 
Irvin:
> "absolutely strange discussion on a bourdieu list."
> This is the first true sentence said on this list about "Wacquant on
boxing"!
Not only that all these long-distance pseudo-psychological-sociological
analyses of Wacquant´s person are mere day dreams, reading phrases
like "all intellectuals love violence" is a reminder for all those who
love to participate in email lists without knowing what they actually talk
about.
Thomas
>  
>  

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