Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:38:59 -0500 From: George Free <gfree-AT-axxent.ca> Subject: Re: [BOU:] Question You are probably familiar with his work, but in case you aren't I would highly recommend Fritz Ringer's work on this subject. He has some articles where he discusses his use of Bourdieu's methodology in his history of education in Europe. George On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:55:45 +0000 "karl.maton" <karl.maton-AT-ntlworld.com> wrote: > I have a question that is probably dumb but is bugging me. > Its bugging me because I know that no specific concept in Bourdieus > conceptual framework is locked onto and identical with an empirical > feature and so I could probably come at this in different ways. (An > analogy is the confusion often felt by people over what the field is ... > it can be something tiny through to something global). > > Anyway, the question revolves around analysing higher education and what > are stances. > > Basically, higher education has a system of social positions > (institutions). > There are two other things though. > (a) the disciplinary map > (b) belief systems or ideologies (or whatever to call them), such as > liberal humanism > Now, both of these belong to the symbolic dimension of the field. > One is the relational field of stances or position-takings > and the other is the participants accounts of the organisation of the > field as a whole. > > Or are they? > > I ask because I am analysing English HE during a specific period and I > am setting out > (1) participants maps of the field (e.g. its division into > universities and colleges or into two cultures of humanities and > sciences). > (2) their explicitly expressed belief systems and models. In English HE > there has been lots of discussion of liberal humanism and the liberal > idea of the university, for example. > Now, (1) is an analysis of the structure of social and symbolic > positions in the field. > And (2) is an analysis of ....... not stances surely, as the > disciplinary / symbolic positions are the stances or position-takings. > > I think both the disciplinary map and the belief systems/models/whatever > are what Bourdieu terms the field of stances BUT they are clearly > different things. Bourdieu tends to subsume them together into the field > of stances .... but I feel they are different things. The models or > ideal types are a bit like stances towards stances. > > I have a feeling I am being very dumb > Any help welcomed with a smile, though please remember that I am > actually analysing a real field here rather than setting out a neat > conceptual definition of everything. > > > -- > With best wishes, > > Karl > > Karl Maton > > Email: karl.maton-AT-ntlworld.com > Email: karlmaton-AT-hotmail.com > URL: http://www.KarlMaton.com > > 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 ********************************************************************** 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