File spoon-archives/bourdieu.archive/bourdieu_2004/bourdieu.0411, message 16

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:58:26 -0800
Subject: [Fwd: [BOU:] Home of Bourdieu]

Patrick Crosby wrote:

> Thanks for you post, Alexanne,
>    As to Yahoo vs something else, I suggest we give it until the end of
> this week and see if someone can come up with a university server. If that
> doesn't happen, Yahoo is probably the way to go. The best way would
> probably be if the owner of the current list allowed it to be used to
> create an "invite list" for the new group. I don't know whether he would
> be willing to do that, or whether he would feel it appropriate to do such.
> Perhaps if he were willing to do the move himself, and then quickly turn
> it over to someone else, that would solve any such ethical difficulty.
>    As to your remarks on capitalism, I think  what you say is correct
> about capitalism always producing losers. But until recently, the loser
> almost always got the chance to try again--- and again. It seems to me
> that with the awesome power of many corporations, this is becoming less
> and less the case. And not only are the losers smaller less powerful
> corporations, but the workers for all corporations. The social role of Ayn
> Rand, in essence, has been that of duping these workers into believing it
> was their "moral duty" to stand by and let this happen. "Everyone has an
> equal right to be selfish" is the basic line. But what Rand's followers
> fail to see is that such "equality," in reality, is a proverbial stacked
> deck, one greatly favoring the heirs to large fortunes. The more money you
> have, the "more selfish" you''re capable of being, one might say. Mr.
> Franks in his much discussed book, "What's the matter with Kansas?" fails
> to take this into account, I believe.
>    There are other logical problems with this notion of "equality of
> selfishness" as well, but I won't go into them here in any detail.
> Likewise any theory of "ethical egoism." Such theories have never been
> taken very seriously by true philosophers because one cannot espouse such
> a theory without violating it. That is to say, if I'm truly selfish, the
> last thing in the world I want is for  *you* to be is selfish. To wish you
> to be selfish is for me to be unselfish, which contradicts the main
> original tenet of the egoist theory. But of course, Ayn Rand never let a
> little thing like a contradiction get in the way of her "theorizing" :).
> el don wrote:
> > At 15:19 -0600 29/11/04, Pia Kate wrote:
> > >It would be a shame to see this list die. Although my knowledge is
> > >too limited to participate much I have found it both fun and very
> > >useful over the years. Since I don't know what alternatives are
> > >available I can only volunteer myself with some time and effort to
> > >keep the list going.
> > >
> > >I would be happy to find out if my school would consider hosting the
> > >list and learn how to run it, or I would be happy to help someone
> > >better equipped to take on the management. If there is no other
> > >solution available at the moment, might it be helpful to move,
> > >temporarily, to a yahoo group?
> >
> > yahoo groups seem to be run quite well, i mean, they can be run
> > easily by anyone. i set up a list very easily - although it doesn't
> > have much traffic. another list i co-moderate on yahoo has functioned
> > very ably for the last few years. we moderate new members' posts, and
> > vet new members to try to avoid getting spammed. seems to work OK.
> >
> > as for the topic of propaganda and ayn rand, this is a rich area for
> > discussion. with or without habitus. a while back i wanted to air
> > some of my ideas on the confluence of bordieu's notion of habitus and
> > bateson's conception of deutero-learning, or learning how to learn,
> > which involves developing subconscious recognition of 'contexts' as
> > similar to ones which have been experienced before - thus making
> > action within that context much easier, as some activites can be
> > relegated to subconscious behaviour. also, it means that one
> > recognises certain contexts as similar and thus finds a repeated
> > 'new' sequence of events easier to 'learn'.
> >
> > but my convoluted thinking on this matter has been 'relegated' to the
> > subconscious for now, as i try to unlearn my habitual ways of
> > aproaching my own research work, which entails distractions in the
> > form of philosophy.
> >
> > yes, freedom of choice really only applies to the fabulously wealthy.
> > all others pay cash and take their chances. plus, the one failing of
> > capitalist ideals is down to a double bind inherent in the dependency
> > of capitalism on competition. if there is freedom to choose, then one
> > thing gets passed over in favour of another. if there is competition
> > to be 'chosen' (or to 'win') then there cannot be any winner without
> > entailing a loser. to my mind, capitalism and competition in general
> > is utterly dependent on producing 'losers'.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > --
> > -----------
> > alexanne don
> > phd research student
> > applied linguistics
> > department of english
> > university of birmingham,
> > birmingham. B15 2TT
> > U.K.
> > (44)-0121-459-5318
> > <>
> > <>
> > <>
> > **********************************************************************
> > Contributions:
> > Commands:
> > Requests:



Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005