From: AHAGGERT-AT-aol.com
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 00:23:39 EDT
Subject: Re: in defense of habitus



--part1_9.276edd38.2a02194b_boundary

Bob:

You write: "In the process of enlightening me, perhaps you would care to 
offer some bibliography to substantiate your claims above."

An extensive bibliography of works by and about Bourdieu is availiable at <
http://www.iwp.uni-linz.ac.at/lxe/sektktf/bb/HyperBourdieu.html#BMenglish>. 
You may also wish to run a web search for "Bourdieu." Many libraries and 
bookstores also stock books by and about Bourdieu. Most libraries now offer 
online search tools as well, so when you visit, you can go straight to the 
shelves and find the books you're looking for. 

You write, "Assuming you are a good social scientist, and considering the 
concept 
of habitus, as well as "the scholar's own ... unintentional bias," how you 
presume to know what PB would have been happy to use?"

By reading Bourdieu, as he quite frequently explains the etiology of the 
term, and also by reading contextual works. (The titles of these can be 
discovered by employing basic research techniques. Ask your local librarian 
for assistance.) At least, that's how I presume your original correspondent 
heard the story.

You write, "IC ... is there a consensus surrounding this definition?" 

Well, Boudieu himself is pretty consistent. See "Fieldwork in Philosophy": 
"generative habitus: dispositions acquired through experience, thus variable 
from place to place and time to time. This 'feel for the game,' as we call 
it, is what enables an infinite number of 'moves' to be made, adapted to the 
infinite number of possible situations which no rule, however complex, can 
foresee." (The paraphrased definition given to you already is thus accurate). 
This essay is collected in In Other Words, a pretty good English-languge 
introduction to Bourdieu. As has already been explained to you, among social 
scientists, there is on habitus as much consesnsus as there ever is on a 
theoretical concept: a lot of people think it's useful, a lot of others think 
it should be modified, and some think it's worthless. I quite like the term, 
myself. And I'm not even an accredited social scientist!

But all this is basic. I second the motion about the value of reading 
Bourdieu before judging the value of his work. 

Andrew Haggerty

In a message dated 5/1/02 9:12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
suannschafer-AT-earthlink.net writes:


> >Dear Bob
> >
> >Maybe you should read Bourdieu before commenting on his work...?
> 
> Dear Sigmund, perhaps you should consider the meaning of habitus, 
> before making such assumptions ...
> 
> >1) What do you mean by "pomo jargon"? There are few contemporary social
> >theorists more hostile to "pomo" than Bourdieu. He ranted and railed
> >against scholars who would construct theories out of their armchairs and
> >insisted that theory must be build up from pain-staking empirical work. He
> >also insisted that the constructs that derived from such an empirical
> >enterprise triangulate local representations, actual practices, and the
> >scholar's intellectual "toolkit" so that they be as objective as possible.
> >To push objectivity even further, Bourdieu insisted that the scholar's own
> >social position be critically examined, so unintentional bias will not
> >creep in.
> 
> In the process of enlightening me, perhaps you would care to offer 
> some bibliography to substantiate your claims above ...
> 
> >3) As for the actual concept of habitus: There are legitimate
> >epistemological grounds for challenging the concept. However, challenging
> >his coinage of a new use (and no, it does not correspond to any concept
> >used by anyone before, Mead or no Mead) is what good social science is
> >about: uncovering social dynamics and giving names to them.
> 
> Thank you for your observation of what constitutes "good social science"
> 
> >Bourdieu would
> >have been happy to use a term that would be readily available, but at the
> >time none was forthcoming.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Assuming you are a good social scientist, and considering the concept 
> of habitus, as well as "the scholar's own ... unintentional bias," 
> how you presume to know what PB would have been happy to use?
> 
> >Cognitive scientists have begun to use terms
> >such as schemas and scripts that begin to approach what B. had in mind, 
> but
> >they are poor substitutes for what he had in mind. Habitus (to offer my
> >definition) are enduring cognitive structures that offer directions for 
> how
> >to behave and what to expect in certain social situations.
> 
> IC ... is there a consensus surrounding this definition?
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> 
> 


--part1_9.276edd38.2a02194b_boundary

HTML VERSION: