Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 08:58:36 +0100 From: "karl.maton" <karl.maton-AT-pop.ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: bourdieu on literary prizes Pam Stello wrote: > In response, i think the modern myth of the individual scientific > genius was created in 1833 with the invention of the term "the > scientist" to describe the members of the 3rd annual mting of the > British Association for the Advancement of Science. Through the > professionalization of science the myth became part of popular > culture. I believe the myth does justify hierarchy as natural and > definately devaluing collective action and the fact that all action is > collective. It also extends "back" into science bcause there are the > popular myths that there is a "math gene" that is in currency even > among professors in math here at Berkeley. I talk about math because I > think, as you say, physics, and other disciplines are very aware of > the collective nature of knowledge production whereas math is still > seen by many, even by academics as an individual, male domain. I > believe that change in the hierarchies in the university among > disciplines and academics won't change until we collectively > understand that math is a practical activity . Mathematicians still > believe that mathematics is universal knowledge and that myth is > maintained in relation with the genius myth in math; they work > together. Universal knowledge in math is signified as male as part of > the genius myth and stands in contrast to the humanities and social > sciences that are signifed as female. A couple of quick points ..... (1) in discussing this one needs to at least analytically distinguish between the knowledge formation of mathematics, which may indeed well be universal, and the social formation, which is certainly gendered, etc etc. (2) I'm not saying it's happening here, but the temptation is to compare rhetoric to reality and denounce the rhetoric as myth and upholding power etc and leave it there. The 'myth' or language of legitimation has significant effects of its own. Take for example the language of legitimation of maths .... damn - I'm in a rush! Myself and Rob Moore briefly analysed this language in a paper published in a book on Bernstein, and I don't want to paste a chunk in here. Suffice to say that the way maths if legitimated (a) has effects and (b) may not necessarily be arbitrary. (3) the genius idea is an interesting one. This brings a complicating and potentially confusing issue - if I start talking about a distinction between the context of discovery and the context of verification, the temptation is to start denouncing this (quoting Bourdieu). But that would fail to realise that I'm talking about how scientists themselves see things and that different 'myths' or forms of legitimation are assigned to each by members of the intellectual field, not making claims myself about whether the two are really distinct. In maths, for example, the discovery is legitimated as an individual genius kind of affair; the verification as social. (4) How do you think the claim of maths to be universal knowledge and the notion of individual genius work together? With best wishes, Karl WHEN REPLYING: PLEASE MAKE SURE MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS NO POP IN IT. Karl Maton School of Education, University of Cambridge Email: karl.maton-AT-ntlworld.com Email: matonianuk-AT-yahoo.co.uk URL: http://www.KarlMaton.com Correspondence address: 108 Avenue Road Extension, Leicester LE2 3EH, England. Tel: +44 (0) 116 220 1066 This is your life and its ending one minute at a time. ********************************************************************** 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