Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:22:03 -0600
From: Deborah W Kilgore <dkilgore-AT-iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: [BOU:] Question


karl, I wonder if ideologies like liberal humanism, objectivism, etc. might 
be analyzed as symbolic violence.  Very quick answer, but hopefully 
continues a conversation.

Deborah Kilgore



At 06:55 AM 11/26/2003, you 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) participantsmaps of the field (e.g. its division into universitiesand 
>collegesor 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 
>ideaof 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