File spoon-archives/bourdieu.archive/bourdieu_2004/bourdieu.0408, message 27

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 00:42:12 +0100
Subject: Re: [BOU:] the meaning of the holocaust

At 13:11 +0800 7/8/04, Daedalus wrote:
>My query was not about the Jewish Holocuast, but the one supposedly
>happened during WWI.
>Sorry for the misunderstanding.

At 6:56 +0800 6/8/04, Daedalus wrote:
>Did it take place in the first place?????

At 13:58 -0400 4/8/04, N Miller wrote:
>>People remember the Jewish Holocaust, but forget the first Holocaust: the
>>nine-million young men slaughtered in the First World War.
>>The Holocaust occurred in order enact the repressed experience of war, to
>>depict the horrific fate of a body that has been given to, taken
>>over by the collective.
>>Jews in the death camp symbolized death at the hands of the nation-state,
>>now stripped of words such as honor, duty and glory.
>As a Jew old enough to have been at Dachau when it was liberated, I
>dislike the word 'Holocaust' and keep a wary eye on the Holocaust
>industry.  But I reserve active revulsion for those who can write
>such rubbish.

OKay, i see. so:
did the _WW1 holocaust_ take place in the first place...?

the missing referent for  "it", i'm sure makes it all clear....

so, rewording the original comment to:  "did the slaughter of nine
million people in WW1 actually occur?" might explain people's
responses of credulity in believing the referent to be the jewish
holocaust  - especially in the light of some widely publicised
'debates' on the matter. certainly it explains mine....

i also apologise if i am still misunderstanding the original
comment, and further apologise if anyone is offended by
discussion of language. [it is notable btw that the only bourdieu
publication i have read cover to cover is 'lang&symbolic
power', and that i am more likely to gravitate to a bernsteinian
view of language - although, again, for me the difference does not
make as much of a difference as hasan might identify]

on the topic of language here, and in the light of another recent
post on this matter, i feel goyishly reluctant to adopt the term
'shoah' to refer to the jewish holocaust. i tend to think it might
signify more knowledge than i am actually privy to. this reluctance
also occurs with me and certain other lexical items which 'belong' to
tribes into which i have not been initiated. does anyone know
whether bourdieu ever commented on these types of (queasiness at)
appropriation of language?


alexanne don
phd research student
applied linguistics
department of english
university of birmingham,
birmingham. B15 2TT


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005